A Selection of Papers Presented at the Conference (Binghamton, New York, October 10-11, 1986)

DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 280 545 JC 870 187 AUTHOR Romano, Richard M., Comp. TITLE The Social Role of the Community College: A Selection of Papers Presented at the Conference (Binghamton, New York, October 10-11, 1986). Reprint Series No. 1=87. INSTITUTION Broome Community Coil., Binghamton, NY; Inst. for Community Coil. Research. PUB DATE 87 NOTE 156p. PUB TrPE Reports = Descriptive (141) -- Viewpoints (120) Collected Works - Conference Proceedings (021) EDRS PRICE MF01/PC07 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS *College Role; *Community Colleges; Conference Papers; Economic Development; *Educational Benefits; Educational Economics; Educational Finance; Educational Objectives; Educational Responsibility; Financial Support; Humanities; Institutional Advancement; Outcomes of Education; *School Community Relationship; *Social Responsibility;_Social Services; State Colleges; Statewide Planning IDENTIFIERS *New York ABSTRACT This proceedings report contains 6 of the 12 papers presented at a conference on the social role of the community college. First, information on the event, a conference program, an ERIC bibliography, and opening remarks by Richard M. Romano, conference coordinator, are presented. Next, the following papers are reproduced: (1) "Community Colleges, Community and Regional Development, and the Concept of Communiversity," by S. V. Martorana; (2) "Determining the Economic Returns on Investment in Selected Occupational Educational Programs," by Edward Mills; (3) "An Economic Perspective on Financing the Community College," by Gary A. Moore; (4) "Mission and Images for SUNY [State University of New York] Community Colleges: A View from Within," by Barbara K. Townsend and responding comments by Gene Grabiner; (5) "The Humanities and the New Student: Some Possibilities for Social Transformation," by L. Steven Zwerling; and (6) SUNY's "Report of the Chancellor's Task Force on Community Colleges," which examines and offers recommendations concerning goverance, ties and relationships between community colleges and SUNY state-operated colleges, academic and general programmatic issues, and funding. (LAL)

*********************************************************************** Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. *********************************************************************** The INSTITUTE for COMMUNITY COLLEGE RESEARCH

If3ROOME COMMUNITY COLLEGE STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK P.O. BOX 1017 BINGHAMTON, N.Y. 13902 (607) 771-6000

THE SOCIAL ROLE OF THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE CONFERENCE PAPERS

Compiled hy Richard M: Romano

Reprint Series NucL 1-87 "PERMISSION TO REPRODUCETHJS LLS. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY Office of Educational Research and Improvement EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION R. Romano CENTER (ERIC) 0 This document-has been reproducedas recelvedJrcm the person or organizatoon originating IL 1Mmor -changes have been made to improve rebroduction quality. TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES Poliats-ol view morn/lions slat edelt his docu. ment do not necessarily represent official INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)." l) OERI position or Wit*. BESI WPYAVAILABLE A Selection of Papers Presented at a Conference on "The Social Role of the Community College" held in Binghamton, New York on October 10-11, 1986

Compiled by Richard M. Romano

Institute for Community College Research Winter, 1987

Reprint Series No. 1-87

3 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface Conference Program ERIC Bibliography Opening Remarks by Richard M. Pomano Conference Papers: S. V. Martorana, "Community Colleges, Community and Regional Development, and the Concept of Communiversity" Edward Mills, "Determining the Economic Returns on Investment in Selected Occupational Education Programs"--An Executive Summary Gary A. Moore, "An Economic Perspective on Financing the Community College" Barbara K. Townsend, "Mission and Images for SUNY Community Colleges: A View from Within" Comments on Townsend paper by Gene Grabiner L. Steven Zwerling, "The Humanities and the 'New Student': Some Possibilities for Social Transformation" State University of New York, Report of the Chancellor's Task Force on CommunIty Colleges PREFACE

On October 10 & 11, 1986, a conference on "The Social Role of the Community Colleige" was held in Binghamton, New York. The conference was hosted by Broome Community College and the University Center at Binghamton, both units of the State University of New York. Support for the conference came from the Conversations in the Disciplines program of the State University of New York. Additional funds were provided by the Broome Community ,::llege Foundation, the Broome Community College FacuIty-Srudent Association, the SUNY Faculty Council of Community Colleges, Broome Community College, and the University Center at Binghamton. The conference attracted three researchers of national prominence, S. V. Mortorana, George Vaughan, and Steven Zwerling, aswell asninety-oneother participants. A program for the cunference is included in this package. Those giving papeis at the conference we asked to submit them so that they could be included in this collection. Only six of the twelve papers given at the conference were submitted. All are included in this collection. The papers that were not submitted, in some cases, represented work that was in progress and will appear elsewhere in the literature. This was the case, for instance, with the paper given by Donna

Fish of Cornell University on "Culture and Form: Social 2.

Change and the Community College." This is a major ethno- graphic study of the 2-year college that will be completed soon.

The conference was a stimu1atir.7 experience for those of us who attended and the papers collected ere will add importantly to the growing Iitel-Aturcon thi topic. PROGRAM "SUNY Conversations in the Disciplines" "The Scitial Role of the Community College"

A conference hosted by the_Insti_tute for Community College Researchat Broome Communty College and the Center for Education andSotial Research at SUNY Binghamton. Thursday, October 9, 1986

8:00-9:00 p.m. Early Registration Holiday Inn-Arena Friday, October 10, 19E16

9:00-9:15 a.m. Oaening. Remarks_ Richard Romano, Director, Institute for Community College Research, Broome Community College Tom Kowlik, Center for Education and Social Research, University Center at Binghamton 9:15-10:45 a.m. Session #1 Papers: _ Barbara K. Townsend, Profes-tOr Of Highee EdUtation, Loyola University of Chicago "Mission and Images for SUNY Community C011eget: A View from Within" Jerry Ryan' Vice President for Institutional Advantement,_Monroe Community College "Attitudes of the Public Toward the Community College" Discussants: Stuart Stiles, Professor of Psychology, Orange County Community College Wayne O'Sullivan' Professor, Erie Community College President, Faculty Council of Community Colleges Maderator: Richard Halpin' Chair0 Social Science Department, Jefferson Community College

10:45-11:00 a. . BEVERAUE BREAK

The COnference is supported_with funds from the Conversationsin the Disciplines prOgram of the State University of New York. Additional funds were provided by the BrOOme_Community College Foundation, The Broome Community College_Facul_ty-Student Association,_the Mr._& Mrs.Mario Romano Fund, the SUNY Faculty Council. of CommunityColleges, Broome Community College and the Center for Education and SOtialRetearth.

7 11:00-12:30 Session #2 Papers: Donna M. Fish, SUNY College of Human Ecology, Cornell University "Culture and Form: Social Change and thb Community College" Edward Mills, Monroe Community College "Economic Returns on Investment in Occupational Programs" Discussants: Thomas Harlach; Chair; Social Science Department; Orange County Community College Stanley H. Masters, Chair, Economics Department, SUNY Binghamton Moderator: Roger McVannan, Professor of Sociology, Broome Community College 12:30-2:00 p.m. LUNCH Welcome: President, _Donald Beattie (BCC) Vice President, John Granito (SUNY Binghamton) Speaker: L. Steven Zwerling, Associate Dean, School Continuing Education, N.Y.U. 2:00-3:30 Session #3 Pagers: George Higginbottom, Dean, Liberal & General Studies, Broome Community College "The Community College: Handmaiden of Capitalism?" Richard Rehberg, Professor, Political Science, University Center at Binghamton "A Critique of the Critics" Discussants: Sandra Pollack; Professori Humanities/Women's Studiesv Tompkins Cortland Community College Gene_Grabiner; Professor, Sociology, Erie Community College Moderator: Ben Kasper, Professor of Business, Broome Community College 3:30-3:45 0.M. BEVERAGE BREAK 3:45-5:30 p.m. Session #4 Panel Discussion SUNY Chancellor's Task Force on the Community College Donald Beattie, President, Broome Community Coilega Donald Donato, President, Niagara Community College Sean Fanelli, President, Nassau Community College Joseph_Hankin, President, Westchester Community College Stuart Steiner, President, Genesee Community College Moderator: Charles Burns, Community College Office, SUNY Central Administration 5:30-6:30 p.m. WINE & CHEESE RECEPTION Sponsored by the Institute for Community College_ Research and the Center for Education and SOcial Research Complimentary Wine & Cheese Cash Bar 6:30-B:00 p.m. DINNER Sge-aker: George B._Vaughan, President, Piedmont Virginia Community College "The Changing Mission(s) of the Community College" Saturday, October 110 1986 9:00-10:30 a.m. Session #5 Pagers: S.V. Martorana$ Professor of Higher Education, Penn State University "Community Colleges, Community and Regional Development, and the Concept of Communiversity" Gary Moore, Professor of Economics, SUNY7Geneseo "An Economic Perspective on Financing the Community College"

Discussants:. Paul Bryant, Chair, Department of Business & Law, Schenectady County Community College Manas Chatterji, Professor of Management & Economics, SUNY Binghamton Moderator: Richard Romano, Professor of Economics, Broome Community College 1030-10:45 a.m. BEVERAGE BREAK

9 10:45-12:15 p.m. Session #6 Panel Discussion "Research Programs for the Future" Chair, Gene Winter, Professor of Higher Education and Director of Two-Year College Development Center SUNY-ALBANY Martorana, Penn State L. Steven ZwerlIng, N.Y.U. Richard Romano, Broome Community College Eric Beamish, Director of Institutional Research, Broome Community College 12:15 p.m. CONFERENCE ENDS

10 EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER

CLEARINGHOUSE FOR JUNIOR COLLEGES

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA. COS ANGELES

The Community College and Social Equalization

_ an ERIC Bibliography specially

prepared for

"The Social Role of the Community College" Conference October 10-11, 1986 Binghamton, New York

Cohen, A.M. "The Social Equalization Fantasy." Comrauratff Col lege ReviEmv, 1977; 5 (2), 74-82.

*Cohen, A.M. "Community Education, Social Equalization, ard Other Whimseys," Paper presented at the_Illinois Community College Presidents'Workshop,- St. Charles, IL, May 5-7, 1977. 24pp. ED 139 479

Ericson, D.P. and Robertshaw, D. "Social Justice and the Community College." Community/Junior College Quarterly of Research and Practice,1982 6 (4), 315-41.

Ginsburg, M.B. and Giles, J.R. "Sponsored and Contest Modes of Social Reproduction in Selective _Community College Programs." Research _i_rt Higher Education, 1984, 21 (3), 281=99.

Pincus, F.L. "On the Higher Voc-Ed in Americe Social Policy, 1979, 10 (1), 34-40.

Pincus, F.L. _"The False Promises of Commumity_Colleges: Class Conflict and Vocational Education." Harvard Educational Review; 1980;aa(3), 332-61.

*Sanborn, 0.H. "Why All CCC Students Need General Education: A Position Paper in Support of Resolutions Proposed bythe City Colleges Study Group." Prepared for the "Education: Planning for the Quality 80s" Conference, Chicago, IL, November 30=Dtcember 1,1979. 21pp. EO 180 519

*Shea, B. "Inequality of Outcomes: Two=Year Educations," Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Societyfor the Study of Social Problems, Montreal, McGill University,1974. 19pp. ED 111 4C0

11 Templin,RA., Jr. and Shearon, R.W. "Curriculum Tracking and Social Inequality in the Community College." New Directions for Community Colleges, 1980, 8 (4), 83-91.

Vaughan, G.S. "The Chal lenge of Criticism." Community and Junior College Journal, 1979,so_(2), 8-11.

*Vaughan, G.B.(Ed.). Imes IALlmt Role. New Directions for Community Co rancisco:--J6isq=lass, 1980. TrIpp. ED 195 18

*Zwerling. L.S.(Ed.). The and Its Critics. 1,.%4 Directions for Commu.ityc-oflte an PialicilT7-75siTtass, 1986. 120pp, (ED number not yet ssigne

_The full text of the ERIC documents listed abovecan be ordered through the ERIC Document Reproduction Service 1EDRS) inAlexandria, Virginia, or viewed on microfiche at over 730 libraries nationwide. Please contact the Clearinghomse for and EDRS order form and/ora list of libraries in your state that have ERIC microfiche collections.

Those items not marked with an "ED" accession numberare journal articles and are not available on microfiche. They must be obtained through regular library channels.

ERIC CLEARINGHOUSE FOR JUNIOR COLLEGES 8118 MUth-Sciences Building UCLA Los Angeles, CA 90024 (213) 825-3931

12 OPENING REMARKS by Richard M. Romano Conference Coordinator

The topic of this conference is the social role of the community college. The meaning of this phrase, "the social role," is confusing to some people but it simply means that we have come together to talk about the role of education in society as it relates to the 2-year college--that is, the broad purposes and ultimate social goals of these institutions. Theorists disagree over what this role is. Probably the more traditional view of education is that it represents the avenue by which people in the society can achieve upward social mobility. From this perspective, education is seen as an equalizer of opportunity which promotes a more open, democratic and egalitarian, or at least méritO- cratic, society. While proponents of this view are quick to point out that such irrelevant factors as gender, race, and family background continue trestrict the upward mobility of many children, they are able to point to studies which show that the expansion of public education in the 20th century, at all levels* has greatly enhanced the openness of the social system and allowed relevant meritocratic factors to outweigh the old ties of family background.

1 3 2.

Within this context, the community college is seen as an institution which has expanded the access to higher education to those groups who were most 1ike3y to have been denied access in the past. This includes part-t::me students, adult women, minorities and economically and educationally disadvantaged groups. While seldom fully articulated, the sup- porters of the community college argue that the impact of the community college on its students is no different from any other form of schooling. That is, it makes people more productive in the labor market, better able to participate in a democracy, better consumers, and so forth--in other words, healthy, wealthy, and wise. In general, empirical studies tend to confirm the correlation between higher levels of schooling and these post-schooling outcomes. Very little of this research, however, has been done on the community college. The critics of the community college dispute the claim that the 2-year college has been a significant factor in promoting equal educational opportunity and upward mobility. To most of them the school system, at alI levels, is but one of the several institutions which serves to perpetuate the existing structure of privilege. The 2-year college's open door philosophy and comprehensive curriculum are held to be merely symbolic gestures to equal opportunity. What they do,

1 4 3;

in fact, is to provide a lower track in higher education where students from lower socio-economic backgrounds are channeled into job slots which are commensurate with their social origins. According to this line of reasoning, the increased vocationalization of the community college in recent years tends to increase rather than decrease the inequality in society. Some of these critics have even taken the position that the expansion of the community college system may not have increased college attendance as much as it has altered the type of college that students attended. If the mere presence of a community college diverts some students away from 4-year colleges, and if this in turn lessens their chances of getting a bachelor's degree, then the community college has the effect of decreasing the level of educational opportunity in society. Now these are clearly fighting words to those of us who work at the community college. To me it seemed that the issues over which the support- ers and the critics of the community college argued had a good deal to do with the mission, outcomes, and financing of these colleges. While it is not possible to cover all of these issues in one short conference, we have put together a program which addresses some of them. COMMUNITY COLLEGES; COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT;

AND THE CONCEPT OF COMMUNIVERSITY

Paper presented at the conference on

The Social Role of the Community College

Sponsored by

Institute for Community C011ege ResearCh Broome Community C011ege

and

Center for Education and Social Research SUNY; Binghamton

Martorana

- Professor & Senior Research Associate Center for the Study of Higher Education The Pennsylvania State University 133 Willard Building University Park; PA16802 = 2 =

This conference seeks to examine again; "the socialrole of the community

college;" This callis quite appropriate in a day when itseems that the

Validity of purpose served by this kind of institutionis in question. The

institution's mission is being challenged bymany persons in many ways. The

conference's program includes several papers commissionedto review and

summarize several of the more serious published contributionsto the current

intense debate about the role to be played by communitycolleges, and George

Vaughn's overview of "the changing misSion(s) ofthe community college"

provides good material for further discussion of thequestion.

The fact that community colleges are in sucha spotlight of examinatiOn

may be viewed by some as a negative circumstance; I do not agree; I see it

instead as further evidence Of the community college's comingof age within

the total complex of postsecondary education in America.Because community

colleges ara serving so many people in so many localitiesin so many ways over

the land, they cannot be ignored. They are educational institutions of ithoe=

tant consequence to the society andeconomy. There is risk, of course, that

the close critical review will bring outsome weaknesses. If so, leadership

in the community colleges will have to deal with them; It is also likely (as

is already proving true) that the examination will bringout the strengths

these institutions possess as well, and community collegeleaders can seize

upon those outcomes to advance the cause of their institutionsmore effec- tiveiv.

Before getting into the specific topics of my presentation, I want to report a finding from my own research about the changingmission of community colleges. As a part of the survey and summary of the actions ofthe several

_I 7 - 3

stata legislatures which I do annually, the several state directors of oom

munity colleges (bey-and reporting on legislative actions)are asked to respond

to a related question; The question asked In the last completed survey, that

covered 1985 state legislative.sessions, was whetheror not there was any

concrete move to change the mission of the community colleges throughchanges

in the statutes or by other official regulatory administrative action in the

state; The response received was overwhelmingly negative. The general

conclusion reached was that while there was much attention being givgnto the

question on the part of both official government and unofficial interests

throughout the land, there is no basis for claiming that public policy defin-

ing the community mission is under change (Martorana & Garland, forthcoming);

At first blush, the questions posed in the theme of the conference,

namely, is there a proper ar .! needed social function that community colleges

are to serve and if so, what is it, and how is it to be fulfilled, seem to

setting up a straw man. One could argue that the questions are answered in

the simple fact that comf:wnity colleges have succeeded in becomingan estab-

lished part of the American postsecondary educational system;Had there not

been a v jful social purpose that was being served, they would not have been

tried and improved upon; They certainly would not have shown the phenomenal

growth rate that is now history and which brought them toa current status of

representing a third of the institutions and some forty percent of the students in the postsecondary educational enterprise in America; So, the question could be answered by the simple response that the social function of the community college Is much the same as that of any other college that emphasizes instruction as a part of its purpose; instruction helps students to

18 = 4 =

learn and to improve their status in life; and through thatprocess society Is edVenCed and a social purpose is proved;

No. That kInd of an answer will not do, albeit itscorrectnest at far at

it goes. The quest for explanation of the social function ofthe community

college persists betaUse there Is0 and always has been,an expected accom-

plishment of a larger social purpose through the communitycollege movement.

Analysts of the community college Idea from its beginnings nearlya hundred

years ago to the present have seen in it a deeper, more sUbtle goal. NeVer

Very well expressed it was nevertheless there. It was that the COmmOnity

collage Would help Americans to develop a better societyIn ways beyond that

of giving all high sChOdi graduates and adults, whetheror not of that level

of school attainment, a chance to further education andtraining--essential as

that was to its mission; Community colleges were envisioned as instrumen-

talities to help build a better "social order."The expectationt Were ini=

-many analyzed by Leonard V. Koos in his classical Commonwealthstudy Of

juniOr colleges as they had developed from 1900 to the early1920s (Kooe,

1924); Among the objectiVes he found most often formally avowed bythese

young institutions was that of "ImprOving llfe in the community of location."

The expectation is evident throughout the works of laterwriterS like Clyde

Blocker who persuaded his colleagues to view the communitycollege as a

"setial synthesis (Blocker, et. al, 1965% Leland Medsker, who included community SerVites as an important part of the prospect of thecommunity college (Medsker, 1960) and, more recently, by Edmund L. Gleazer, Jr;on whose visions I will touch upon more fully later on (Gleazer, 1980).

:19 One must report, however, that to date no strong emphasis has been put

Upon the community services role of the community college.Generally, this

element within the multi-faceted comprehensive mission th s type of college is

to perform runs a poor fourth or even fifth after those termed as university

parallel or transfer, occupational, developmental, and general 6i:1U-cation.

This despite the fact thlt proponents of the broader services tO the tommunity

like Hariacher (1969) and Gollatscheck and others (1979) have pushed for a

betTer balance among the functions and a stronger stress on the community

terVice function. The exception to the general observation is the way that

the potential of community colleges to serve as instrumentalities for local

and regional economic development has been recognized and promoted (Martorana

& Garland, 1984).

So continuing inquiriez :bout the social function of the community

college are to be expected.They arise in part to test the claims of the

doMMunity colleges of the past.Have they in fact helped to improve the

86cial order?They also arise to challenge what community colleges might wish

to do in the future, is the social function of the future community college

the same as that claimed for it in the past, or is it that in Medified or is there an entirely new one to be performed? Or, is there no defense for

any such function at ail, in which case these colleges should be phased out of the postsecondary education enterprise entirely?

In my opinion, there is a social role that community colleges are performing well but needs rebalancing within the comprehensive Mittion. Their thrust should be to find a new promise by reasserting and strengthening ah did one. The major social role that community colleges should take on to se = 6 =

the American society during the next periOdOf itt deVeltibMent should put more

emphasis on an active engagement in community and regionalde"AilOpMent, that

is, a stronger reassertion of Koos/ goal of improvinglife in lodal cOmmuni-

tieS.

Several clusters of conditiötia are evident in the widersociety and

economy that make the suggested rOle a doMpelling one for the futureof

community colleges. Among the clusterS Of fectOrt that ate at workare these

five: (1) those tending to decentralize the way that the totietyand economy

Will function in the future; (2) those cp9sing communitycolleges tO tee their

fUnttion Of provleng individual learners opportunity to doso as one that is

limited in terms of numbers of persons to be reached; (3) thosewhich are

forcing a new recognition of the fatt that tollegiate education,when focus-

sing only on a given individualls growth and deVelogiMentla not meeting its social purpose fully; (4) those causing a de-urbanizatiOn -Ofthe nation population; and finaliy, (5) those generated by the relatedobservationt of fact that community colleges, on the one hand,are highly locally oriented

institutions while other colleges and universities,on the other, are dedi- cated usually to serving considerably broader-based constituencies. A brief elaboration of each of the five clusterg of factort Just enumeratedas it bears on the notion of a new social role for community collegetit in order.

The futurists of the land are hard at work attempting toassess the Ways that new discoveries particularly those in the realm oftelecommuCcations and information science will shape our future. There appears to be a growing consensus among forward thinkers that one impact Will be to decentralize the formulation and control of ideas (including public policy) as Wellas to

21 = 7 =

scatter about more widely the production and distribution ofgoods and ser-

vices in the economy; So, Harlan Cleveland tells us That In the emerging

"information society," "More and more work gets done by horizontalprocess or

it doesn't get done. More and more decisions are made with wider and wider

consultations--or they don't stick A revolution In the technology of

organizationthe twilight of hierarchy--is already underway" (Cleveland,

1986). And Naisbitt, in his book agatttata argues that all of AmericaIs

decentralizing. He says, "Centralized structures are crumbling allover

America. But our society Is not falling apart; Far from it. The people of

this country are rebuilding America from the bottomup into a stronger, more

balanced, more diverse society.The decentralization of America has trans-

ferred politics, business, our very culture." He goes on. "Decentralization

creates more centers; That means more centers. That means more choices for

Individuals" (Nalsbitt, 1982, pp; 97-128).

In recent years the question perplexing most colleges and universitide more than any other is that of the size of future enrollment of students.

Forecasters of doom clashed wilh predictors of continued growth,the former putting their case on the declining size of the population of"college-going age" and the latter placing their bets on a higher "participationrate" In college going on the part of college-aged persons as wellas progress in

"lifelong learning" as a feature of the American culture. The point here Is not to review that debate or judge the accuracy of the forecasts eitherup to now or into the future; it is to stress the fact that a justification ofa college-based strictly In services to individual learnersas students has the built in limiting fact of populeion size. This Is true whether the base for förecasting is the traditional college-agepopulation de aii adults in a given

Set-Vide area counted as potential lifelong learners. EVen partiCipants in

"recUrrent education" as adult learners havelimitations of tithe aVailable for

such activity at well as limitations insome instances of financial and Other

resources; institutional researchers, planners, and policydecision makers

are taking this realizmtion into account more andmore in forecasting future enrollments in their institutions.

To a certain extent, therefore communitycoileget Will CohtinUe to draw

their Vitality by being centers for adultrecurrent or lifelOng learningi

Indeed, this wi!I likely be a main base for theirreasserted social funCtien.

But again, the function enVitioned ismore far reaching than simple service to

individuals, an observation which movesus to the next set of factors;

The axiom that education must serve both theindiVidUal student and the

ideoe society of which the student Isa member is Widely'aCcepted. It is a

driving principle undergurding policy directionsset by both ad-a-cat-des and

leaders of the general public. It also represents a constant tensionWhiCh

needs recurrent balancing in both educationaland public policy positions; We

are in a new and growing wave of opinion that collegiate educationin America

has drifted too 'ar toward serving the individualstUdeht learner's self

determined best interests and away from servingthose of the lergee todiety;

Russell Edgerton, for example, admonishes highereducation leadership in SUCh words as, "Lord krIOWS, the question is not whetherwe should be training students to be critical thinkersthey need to bemore critical not less; But

Is that enough, or ail there should be?Take a look at the larger social picture."

23 "The traditional sources of affirming values--famllies, schools,

churches, neighborhoodsall have lost their former gripon the hearts and

minds of the young. We're spinning new webs of attachment and association

but it's not clear that these elicit the same tehte of reSpeinSibilityto

larger groupscommunity and country--as we've had befOrd.

"J..in a culture stressing conformity, we should stress the ValUe Of

IndiVidUality. BUt now In a society tilting toward aggressive individualism

and negativism, it's time to weigh on the side of cooperation and community;

If we don't, after all, we leave the retben to community andcountry In the

hands of those who will base their appeals Oh haetow Vitions of patriotism and

nationalismrvisions no longer viable in today's interdependent woele (Edger-

ton, 1986 pp. 6-7).

SO We have all sorts of calls for reform, many of.them addressed, partic-

ularly tb the undergraduate experience. (And I might say parenthetically too

much addressed to undergraduate education at it Is expected to be experienced

by students of traditional college age attending Collegeon a full-timeand

ideally in a resicientlai mode, and too much disregarding the otaottoallack of

realism of those last two elements occurring for the older recurrent student.

The Calls for reform recommend new or reactivated form of general education,

required public service experience, a greater student involement in learning,

and on and on. They are find, at fae at they go, but they are not far

reaching enough; Particularly they are not fully Meaningful to coMMunity

colle in search of their revitalization and a grasp upon a Continuing and sidnificant social function;

24 ;. 1 0 .

The next cluster of factors centerson the trend teWerd de-urbanization

Of American society. It and the one to follow turn to conditiOnSwhich seem

to Me to give community collegesan edge in finding the flpot Of gold at the

end of the ralnbove at least for the nextquarter century or so. Firtt,

consider the ImpMations of an apparent trendtoward a greater dispersal of

the American population. Here are some figures from the U.S. Census:

(1) In 1980 there were 22,325 places_ofpoptilation of 2,500 or more people. Of these0 210387were of_25,000Or_IOSSand only 1038 were of larger than 250000 population.Small pladet prevail In a ratio of about 20:1;

(2) Of the 10138 larger places only 6 were larger than 1 milliQn people; 16 were_between 500i000 and 9990999;34 between 250 and 499,500; 117 betWeen 100_and 2490999; 290between 50-99,999; and 675 between 25 and 49,999.

(3) percentages of the tdtal pOputation reflectsomewhat the same pattern; while 17.9_percent of the total Populationof the U.S. resided in places of 2500000 ormore in 19800_38.8 percent resided in places_of between 10,000 end 2500000. And the latter is the size classification thatare greWingi An_1960 the comparable figure was 32.3 percentand ih 1970* 35.5 percent. In shorti places of _between_10,000 and 2500000people in tize_grew throughout the two decadesin percent Of the total popelation by_6.5 percentage points while thepercentage Of those liVing in larger_places dropped by 4;1points from 22.0 percent in 1960 td 20.7 Percent in 1970 and 17;9percent in 1980.

America is a country of small cities and townsinot one of places of monolithic size. This is not to disregard the phenomenon Ofmetropolitan

Spread -or urban sprawl. It is more to observe that Within thatphenomenon there Is a structure, and therefore.a capacity,to effect community end regional development. The localities cannot disconnect from thelarger developments, but neither can effective social andeconomic advancement on the larger scenes occur without sound development at theMore localized community and regional levels; Public and social policy may be promulgated by larger

social and political structures such as the state, nation,or even Interna-

tronal agencies, but in the final analysis that policyhas to be implemented

at lOdal Community and regional levels.

And finally, look at two features of community collegesthat seem to flt

them particularly Well to promote community and regionalrenewal: one is

their long-standing commitment to community enhancementthat was described

above; the other Is their geographic dispersal. Edmund J. Gleazeri Jri,

former president of the AACJC in the early 1970s mademuch cif the point that

every one of the U.S; Congressional District had at least one associate-degree

granting) two-year college located in Iti In many of those places, the

community colleges is the highest level educational Institutionpresent; The

sheer act of their availability and proximity is an advantage toindividuals and community interest groups of all kinds which cannot be denied.

Their geographic dispersal and commitment to localarea IMprovement glve the more than 1,200 institutions Involved in community college61:1U-cation en adVentage over Other types of colleges and universities inserving the Social role of community and regional development ona widespread basis; The advan= tage is strengthened by the stance typically taken by othercolleges and universities; Most of the other 2,300 or so InstitUtions of higherlearning are committed much more intensely tp serving statewide, multi-state regional, national, and In some cases even international constituencies. Thit It not to say that these institutions, whether publicly or privatelycontrolled, ignore the impact that their presence makes on the localitiesaround their campuses, not all all;Jt istaiblyto-t-a-h-itt---thel-tb-r-Lnittrema.as_isis Dni_on the

26 = 1

mom.-ir- aull

Community colleges make that a distinct emphasis,Other dolledes and univer-

titles tend not to do so. The different institutional postures, however,

ought not to be seen as a negative circumstance. The dferant posturet taken

can become a strong base for interinstitutional cooperation--itcan lead to

further recognition and implementation of thenew concept and within that to a

new role for the community college; I refer to the Concept of the communi-

versity.

The communiversity concept flows logically froma recognition that

effective community and regional development cannot realisticallybe seen as

the domain of any tingle organization or institution. it grants that many can

contribute to the objective. HOwever, it sees the goal more likely achieved

when the several organizations in a locality or well=defined region Undertake to cooperate rather than compete in the effort.

The need for such a cooperative interinstitutionalresponse to a IOC&

COMMUnity or region's needs for continuing development andimprovement was

impressed upOn me when I was serving in New York as assistant commissioner for higher education planning. (Some of the presenters and some of you in the audience may recall that I first came to the New York Department of Education to organize an office for planning and to direct fOrMUlatitinOf the first

Regents' statewide plan for higher education.This was to comply with the

1964 ttatUte mandating that such a plan be produced and 0-Libiishedby +-he

Regents WA:try fbur years.) The COmmissioneri James B. Alleni encouraged my exploration of a regional as well as a more localized anda statewide approach to examining the needs for postsecondary educatiOn and theresources available

27 -13-

to respond to those needs; That started attention on regional planning

applied to postsecondary education in New York State and; while the concept

has not fully taken hold; neither has it been totally abandoned;

Atting from the observations going on In New York state, I challenged the

assembled leadership of the California community colleges in a speedh made to

them in 1965 (Martorana, 1965) to think of their InstitUtions as important

components of a needed even more comprehensive service, something along the

lines of a "community university." The challenge apparently was not seminal

at that time but about ten years later essentially the same idea was expressed

by Samuel G. Gould; then Chancellor and my superior in the State University of

New York. In a book of lectures on the "academic condition" of the day he

turns to view the future with the alert, "Enter the Communiversity." Elab- orating he writes;

The university of the future; as I envision it; will be a loose federation of all the educational and cultural forces of a community--at every age level. It will be a coordinated educational entity_serving a_single, fairly large community; or a single; compact region if a group of communities is more appropriate. Whether it will_have_a single name or even_be called a university any longer,_is hard to_say.Parts of it will_undoubtediy have names similer_to those they do now. But what we think of today as 'the college' or 'the university' will constitute only a portion of the future whole (Gould, 1970; p. 90).

Such a coalition of resources in my view could contribute mightily to local community and regional development. In order to bring it about, however, a new thrust of leadership along with a different sense of social purpose to be performed will be necessary; Provision of the leadership and formulation of the revised mission can be the wave of the future for community colleges. Fulfillment of the promise Will require more than jUst service as =14=

"nexus" or center for lifelong learning suchas Gleazer has described

(Gleazer, 1980); It will require commitment of the Community colleges tobe a

significant part, a leader and promoter ofa more complex and even more

Comprehensive aid to local community and regional development. The tothmuhity

college cannot by ittelf be the whole of the communiversity, buta key con*

ponent of it. Implementation Of the concept will require emphasison inter-

organizational cooperation and mutual interdependence. A fufl presentation of

the new form of leadership required to translatethe COMMOIVersity concept to

functional service in community and regional developmentis beyond the scope

of thit paper; however, one will be availablesoon (Martorana & Kuhns, forth=

coming).

Some assurance of the feasibi,lity Of the communiversityconcept can be

drawn from observation of what it now actually happening in communityand

regional economic development; Throughout the land, c011égét and universities

of all kinds are linking with other organizations inorder ft Or-OM-Of-6 licOhOmic

development. Within this general situation the community collegesare playing a key role. State after state is recognizing community collegesas a key resource in economic development either in their capacity to provide education and training to businesses and industriesor to deliver other needed assistance such as conducting area needs studies, studentcareer interest surveys, and so on.

Wheel this accomplishment in the realm of economic developmentis observed, the question arises quickly, why nota similar service on the pert of the community colleges, Joined With other educational, social,and cultural organizations in an area, to promote Community and regional developmentin

29 - 15-

other domains of the general welfare; One can argue that in all endeavors an

intellectual component exists which can be translated to educational and

training requirements for effective participation in it; If this is so, then

the endeavors cf all organized interests that directly or indirectly havean

impact on the general welfare in a locality can become activities in which

community colleges, and other colleges and universities as well; can join;

Indeed, that 14 the logic undergirding the suggesti:In of a new approach to

academic programming which is getting increasing attention among community

colleges; The suggestion is developed in a small volume called aligining

Er1212,mmunity_Stalwa (Martorana & Piland, 1984). In essence, the

proposition advanced in essence is that academic services such as courses,

workshops lectures, and so on, organized singly or organized as a curriculum,

can be organized around the intellectual components of the special interests

of a wide range of organized community groups, with advantage to all con-

cerned--the group as an organization, the group's membership and individuals,

and the college as an agency sensitive to a social purpose as well as to

individual student development;

The concept of the communiversity will seem to many to be an ambiguous description of an attack on the large and related tasks of helping individuals to grow and communities to develop through education. To accommodate the ambiguity, it may help to remind all of us that education itself--that is the quest for learning (both to serve individual and to serve social purposes)--is an ambiguous undertaking. It demands different conceptualizations to fit the different purposes it is expected to actieve. Education, for example, must be have certain characteristics when its object is to =My the student-- - 16-

learner for something, for example; to continueas a fifth semester or junior

majoring in accounting in a university/s college of businessor to be a nurse

registered to practice In certain aspects Of hospitalor health care services.

Education takes on other attributes; however; when the objectsof the learning

experience are to help to move the student-learner towarda higher level of

personal participation in the society and economy and to do thingsthat

Improve the quality of community life.

The several purposes of education, of course,are interrelated, but for both purposes of the two Just described, the communitycollege will continue to serve a useful social role. However, community colleges cannot seek sucxesstully to carry alone the full complement of services thatare needed.

Both purposes seem now to call for +he community college to adopt;clarify,

and lead in advancing a new concept. I submit for that consideration the concept of the communiversity.

31 - 11 -

REFERENCES

Blocker, C. E., Plummer, R. H., & Richardson, R. C., Jr. (1965). The ttio- year col_Lege:_ A social synthesil. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Cleveland, H. (1986). Educating for the information society. Change* 11(4),

12-21. .

Edgerton, R. (1986). College as counterweight. ghgum,11(4)0 6=7.

Gleazer, E. J., Jr; (1980). The-community-collsge: Velues_. and vitality. Washington, DC: American Association of Community and Junior Colleges.

Gollatscheck, J. F. (1979). QQUAgtjjasittcsILEssuomunittmlufutt&L. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Gould, S. B. (1970). Tasiel. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Harlacherp I. (1969). The-community-dimsion-in-tfm) -community colLege. Englewood Cliffs,NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Kdos,J... V. _(1924). 1131HlinigrszWaagg Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota.

Martorana, S. V., & Garland, P. H. (forthcoming). State legislation effetting-COMMuni-ty-junfor. and two-year technical col legesi_ 19U (A report to the National Council of State Directors of Community and Junior Colleges). University Park, PA: Center for the Study of Higher Education, The Pennsylvania State University.

Martorana, S. V., & Garland, P. H. (1984). Public policy for economic development: The two-edged sword. Community and Junior College Jourmel, 16- 19.

Mariorana, S. V., & Kuhns, E. (forthcoming). Communit colleges, local and regional development, drift toward communiversity. Issues-in-comounity college edulailam. New York, NY: MacMillen.

Martorana, S. V., & Plland, W. E. (Eds.) (1984)._ Desigping programs for community groups._New directions for commgnIty-totleges, 45. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Center for Governmental Research Inc.

DETERMINING THE ECONOMIC RETURNS ON INVESTMENT IN SELECTED OCCUPATIONAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS

Prepared for:

New York State Educa,:ion Department In Fulfillment of: VEA Project Number 53-83-9101 9/1/82-8/31/83

Submitted by:

Monroe Community College 1000 EastHenrietta Road Rochester, New York14623

Proe t Staff

lionzotCommutItyCollege Center for Governmental Research___Tn,'; Dr, Edward Mills, Jeffrey Smith, Project_ Director Principal Research Analyst Sherrill Ison,_ Margaret Raymond; Research ASsistant Statistical Research Methodologist

September, 1983 Center for Goirernmental Research Inc,

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

TWrpode and Objectives of the Study

This study was_undertaken for the New York State EducationDepartment to determine the -6-di:gnomic return on investment in selected occupational education prograls At ihiblic two-year colleges in NewYork State.

7he purpote of the study was to quantify: (1) the investment made in selected disciplined by the graduates, employers,and state government, and (2) the_recurns from this investment: to the graduate--as measured by salary differentials of technicians With two-year degrees,to the employer in New York State--as measured by the savings to business attributableto not having to train their own technicians, and to the state government andresidents--as measured by the economic benefit to the state resulting-frommaintaining employers who might otherwise leave, not expandor expand elsewhere becaus2 of a lack of trained technicians in New York State.

The focus of research was on two-veer technicaltraining in four selected disciplines: (1) Data Processing, (2) Health Service/Paramedical, (3) Engineering/Mechanical, and (4) Business/Commercetechnologies.

Project_ohjectives included the undertaking ofa statewide maned survey of-a representative_sample of New York State employers with100 or more employees, covering areas of technician hiring practices,salary differentials for education and experience, training preferences,and alternative hiring preferences. In addition, a sample of public two-year schooldwas surveyed separately for information on technician trainingcosts, placement information, number of graduates, revenuesources and related topics. Data from employers and schools were synthesizedto produce estimates of (1) training costs in each discipline, and (2) benefitstreams derived by the graduate, the employer and governmental jurisdictions.

Mq21-22dology_p_secila.12mLAS2dE

One_hundred eighty-six firms operating in New YorkState Mere selected_to be representative by Standard IndustrialClassification (SIr),. Site Of firm, and geographic distribution of aII NewYork State eftployerS With 100 or more employees. Of these, 152 agreed initially to participatein the Survey* and were mailed a survey form to complete; 85were returned (a _55 perteUt response rate). One question asked employers_to identify pUblid two-year institutions from which they had hired technicalemployees in re-Cent years; The resulting_list provided the basis forselecting a sample of schools for the school survey. Fifteen schools received the mailed StirVey; eleven retUrned Sufficient informationto be included in the school analysis.

31 Center for Governmental Research Inc.

liajor-liedings 4d-the Study

The information p:ovided by employers and schools characterizing the demand for and supply of two-year graduates yielded the following findings:

o Estimation of the statewide distribution of technical jOb openings it 1982 it firms of over 100_employees_shows that the largest share was in theEngineering/Mdchanical area (41;3 percent), followed by Health Service/Paramedical (23.8 percent), Business/Commerce (20.9 percent), and Data Processing (13.9 percent);

o The distribution of public two-year graduates id 1982, Within selected disciplines, shows that the largest share was_in Business/Commerce (54;7 percent); followed by Engineering/ Mechanical (21 percent), Health Servite/Paraftedical (16.5 percent), and Data Processing (7;8 percent).

o The distribution of technical positions filled id 1982, by industry, shows a dominance of financial/insurantetreal_ estate (31.4 percent), service firms (27.6 percent), and manufacturing (21.5 percent);

o Employers indicate that schools are w. major source of skilled workers. Most hiring is done trom the existing labor

.force. .

o Comparisons of entry salaries received by two-year graduates and entry salaries specified by employers for jobs requiring a two-7rear degree indicate that the average graduate salary is typically lower than that speciiied by the employer for two-year jobs; This is particularly true in Business and Commerce where the salaries reported by the graduate average 30 percent less that those offered by the employer. This could be due to supply/demand conditions and/or misalignment of curriculum content and employer requirements;

o EMploYer hiring/training preferences differ among the various dieciplines_atudied. While most employers prefer to hire Skilla ia All areas, their post-hiring training practice differa bY_diacipline. Generally, positions in the areas of Businesd/ Commerce and Data Processing are reported to requite more training once hired. This is possibly due to more_operation-specific skill requirements in these areas. If thia it_the &Jae' the_graduates' entry-level salarymay be somewhat ditcounted in_these fields since employers perceive the_need fot additional investment in operation-specific trainieg.

0 While evident dedtadre reasonably uniform among the selected diseiplinda, the school_program costs per degree are shown to vary widely fret an eStiMAted lOw of approximately $5,700 for Business/Commerce degrees tc a high of $9,800 for Health Service and Paramedical degrees in community colleges. 35 Center for Governmental Research Inc.

o On a statewide basiii there is misalignment between the dittribution of public two-year school graduates supplied iL the selected diaciplined and_the distribution of technical positions available from employers (with over 100 employees) in those diSciplined. If the Supply of graduates is larger than required, the graduates will more often be faced with accepting jobs below their capabilities, or outside their fields; hence, the lower salaries. Also, in Business/ Commerce the jobs for.Which graduates are trained (e.g., secretarial science) may not be thode for which empl,yers require a rwo-year degree; hence, the salaries receivedmay be those for which the employers specify a high school degree.

Employer and school information together permitted the estimation of the economic rates of return on investment and payback periodsfor the four disciplines studied. These calculations Showed:

o Graduate returns on investment in all distiplines etdept Health Service and Paramedical art shOwti tb be COMpetitive over a 10-20 year period. The rate of return varieS substantially primarily due to the tomparative Salary levels for jobs requiring a high school_degree. III Health Service, and to a certain extent in Business/Commeroe,_the salary differential is not enough to create a otwpetitive rate of return over the short run (i.e., 10-20 yeats).

. O It is likely that employers receive a net benefit ftOt their tax investment in two-year education, slate their higher cost training alternatives (which would be tecessary if there_ Wea en inadequate supply of graduates)_areMere CodtlY_than the average business share ofa graduate's education.

o State tedidenta are paying less than $12;00per capita each year to finance_public two-year school enrollments of apprOkitately 260,000 students. Although it is impossible to datimate the economic returns on a statewide basis fret suCh an investment it is likely that thereare substantial direct and indirect economic gains dueto economic aotiviry of the_StheOl dtployees, students, supportindustries, and the maintenance t.f_expanding or new businesseswhich_may choose_to go outside Of New York State ifa skilled labor force is not readily available.

o Payback periods and rated Of return are serive to alteratious Of any Of_the assumptions constrainingthe analysis (e.g., time frate Of AndlYsis, likelihoodof employment, pride factota). Center for Governmental Research Inc.

Consideration of the outlook for graduates of two-year technical training programs in light of present and projected eccnomic and demographic trends provided the context for the following inferences:

o The misalignment of the distribution of graduates supplied in the selected dieciplines and the distribution of technical positions available from employers cau be expected to shift over the coming years. Employment and occupation projections suggest that if two-year schools maintain their current curricula, the misalignment could worsen. It is clear that it will be even more important in the future for businesses to evaluate and articulate their needs for technically trained employees. A continual attentiveness and responsiveness to business needs will be required of two-year schools to adequately prepare their graduates to be competitive in the labor force.

o The outlook for the 1980s indicates continued competition for entry level jobs; even though the college age group is decreasing in size, there will be_an increasing percentage of other first-time entrants to the labor force who will also be seeking encry-level employment. Additionally, the labor force will be increasingly educated and employers may continue to raise educational requirements for jobs.

Conclusions

- It can be concluded from this study that active participation between employers and two-year public schools is necessary in order to serve current and future technical needs of employers within New York State. To the extent that employers benefit, the graduate will maXimize their return from investment in post-secondary education. Currently, there are indications that there not only may be misalignment of employer demand and graduate supply among selected disciplines, but there also may be misalignment within discipline between the employers' technical needs and the curriculum provided by the two-year schools. Center for Governmental Research Inc.

_Conclusion-a

It is commonly assumed that investment inpost-secondary education

will not only increase an tndividual's employabilitybut also provide the

graduate with a respectable economic return (receiVed fromhigher future

wages). The findings from the study cast dOubton the latter assumption,

suggesting that, in the short run at least,returns on investment may not

jUatify the investment insome disciplines;

It can be concluded from this study thatactive participation between

emplOyers and two-year public schools isnecessary in order tO serve current

And future technical needs of employers within NewYork State. In order for

this to occur it is encumbant upon employersto articulate their wilds to

two-year schools in the state and for the schools to respondtO thOse needs

within the resources available. To the extent that employers benefit, the

graduate will maxitize their return from investmentin post-secondary

education. Currently, there are indications that therenot only may be

misalignment of employer demand and graduate supplyamong selected

disciplines, bnt there also may be misalignment withindisciplines between the

employers' technical needs and the curriculumprovided by the two-year schoolS.

Since resources for post-secondary educationare limited, it is

imperative that there is an efficient allocationof school training efforts;

Employers and schools should he expected to continuein their attempts to

maximize graduate; employer, and statereturns from investment in two-year

education. It is particularly important to increasethe effectiveness of

training since post-secondary educationmay become a prerequisite for

employment, regardless of the graduatt returnon investment.

38 Center for Governmental Research Inc.

S.0

The study findings and conclusions outlined abova suggest

implications for education policy and for further study in this and other

areas.

First, it is clear that linkages between the employers and schoolS

shonld be stressed in order to communicate the needs of the employer today and

tomorrow. This should include additional attention to the smaller employer

Who hati generally not been a focus of the two-year system.

Better linkages should offer the schools more useful information for

planning purposes than currently exists.For example, there is mixed opinion

today AS to whether the way of the future is in high technology (with

extensiVe math and science background) or in basic skills (e.g., English)for

communication and learning on-the-job. High technology may not add the jobs

envisioned by some, and may in fact "deskill" many jobsas they become more

mechanized and routine. This could lead to less demand and lower wages for

technical graduates.1What is clear, nonetheless, is that an increased

attentiveness to broad based employment trends will allow schools tomore

accurately gauge the market for the graduates they train.

Second, the school system should be prepared to shiftresources as it

becomes apparent thet demand/yields are low in selectedareas. Options such

as employer-based skill training and a system of recurrent educationmay help

in this area. Employer-based training (e.g., cooperative education)may be

one way to limit investment in equipment and faculty in order to maintain

rgiiry Levin and Russell Rumberger,The_Educational Lhplications of High, Technoklu, February, 1983.

3 9 Center for Governmental Research Inc.

flexibility, and to better focus on the needs and demands of specifit firMS

and occupations. A system of recurrent education would be appropriate tO meet

the continually eVolVing needs of industry. In short, schools could benefit

(and hence So could graduates) froma reorientation to technical training as

an evOlutionery process, not a static choice atone point in time.

Finally4 sraduatesmust be better prepared to adapt to changes in the

work environMent tAret tithe. This suggests that they should receive a good

basic education in additionto vocational training in order to have the skills

necessary to adapt tO Change. Schools can assist in this regard by ensuring,

through distribution rettuirekents Eind=if necessary-intensiveremedial

programs, that graduatea haVd the da0Ability to accommodate changing demands

for skills;

Improvements in thit area Will be facilitated by additionalstudy of

the factors that contribute to the Varying yield&seen in the disciplines

reviewed in this study; Efforts in thia &red Will produce a better

understanding of the dynamics of schoOltetplOyer linkages, cooperative

education and other approaches which may cOntributeto increased yields in the

system of two-year education.

40 AnEconomic-Perspective on Financina the Community Collage

by Gary A; Moore Professor of Business and Economic', State Univormity_of NOV YOrk College at Gehedeo

Presented at The Social Role of the CommunityColle Conference sponsored by Broome Community_College and the University Center t BinghamtOn

A SUNY Convrsation in the Disciplines

Gat-ober 11, 1986

41 Although community COlieges haveexperienced phenomenal SUCcess over the past 25 yeArs as measured bymoat commonly accepted criteria, a number of diffiCult issues pertainingto the financing Of these inStitutiOns have arisen more recently. These issue4 have included questions about the most appropriatepricing (tuition) policy, the desirability of local support andthe existence of interdistrict

wealth inequities, the proper Mix of localvso state vsfederal vs. private support, and the relationship(if any) between community college financing policy thd thatapplying to four-year inatitutiOnw of higher education. ISeUes such an those takeon even *Ore significance in the 1980'sas the prospects for declining ehrellments

and excess capacity threatenthe higher geducation secittir. Not surprisingly, a hUMber of reportsand atudies have sikt'faCed duringthe past decade which addressthese important matters.' The disc4.p1ine of economicsprovides a useful. framework for

considering many of these issues. In particular, the principlesof public finance as applied to'della services can be utilized beneficially to analyzemany COnmunity college finance problems.a

This paper prsentsa geftertlized application of theseprinciple*. While this remcoptualfraiework provides, useful generalgUidelines for evaluating community Oellegefinancing policies it dee* het yield t precise blueprint. EVentually, apecific policyimpletehtttion involves the pOlitiCalprocess wherein policies are tailoredto the local economic conditions, political priorities, ihatitutionalmix, and student demands. lap_Son202.tuAlk. The discipline of ecOnoMics concerns itself vith the fundamental fact that every Odiety's conomic rsources exist in insufficient

quantitie& te COMpletely fulfill the wants of mociety. Although the availability of productive resources varies greatly among societies,

all must live with the basic problem of scarcity. Given scarcity, every society mumt make decisions about what is to be produced with the scarce resourcs, how much of each good or service ifs to be produced, and to whom the resulting output is to be distributed.

Presumably, a society's scarce resource& should be allocatedas efficiently am possible in answering the first two questions. *An efficient allocation of re&ources exists when the toial benefits from producing a good or service exceeds byas much as possible the total costs of producing it.

For moat goods and services, an fficient allocation ofremouzzes can be achieved through the operation of the free market without government intervention in a capitalisticeconomy. The free decisions

- of proftt-meeking producers and satisaction-seekingconsumers will take Into account aIl of the costs aPd benefit*ihvolVed. However, the free market fails to achieve an-effidiehtallocation of resources if the benefits and costs are hot liMited to thedirect producers and consumersi i.e. when ah kiittittit=t exists. In the extreme case of a pure public-aood aUdh aenatiOnel defense, the benefitsare aII public and collectively dOhithied. The market cannot allocate efficiently because tho benefit* are completely indivisible(everyone consumes the 43 same amount and one persOn's consumptiondoom not reduce the amount

remaining for others) andnonexclusive (n0 one can be excludedfrom the benefits); The resulting paradox je thatno consumer win he Willing to pay tor thepure public 0i:it'd even though Itmay have great value, secause no one can be eXClUded from itsbenefits for leek Of payment; Efficiency in much A eituatton mustbe sought through the - political determination Of the°best" amount of the goodor serVide, 'with payment compelled thrOughtaxation.

An efficient llocation ofresourcs, whether determined by the market or by the political process, answers the questions of whatIs to be produced and In whatquantities; Thie does not, however, guarantee

an equitable distribution of society'a'resultingoutputi i;e. it does not Answer the question ofwho should get what. Collective political

deciSions are required to deteriiiineWhat a society means by°equity° and to achieve this equityby taking some groupsso an to tranefer income to others; With the °proper° distributionof incoMeo society's output can then be distributedin accordance with that income; While tIlitikkakt isan objective criterion, at halt conceptually, eau-i-tir its subjectiveand requires a definitidnfrom political consensus. Furthermore, the goals Of iffiCiencyand equity often (although not invariably)conflict, requiring furtherdifficult political decisions which tradeoff MOr6 Of one for less ofthe other; A. the late ArthurOkun has noted:

In pursuing'Ethe goalof indtkile equality30society_would forego any opportunity touse materiel rewards as incntivesto_pro duction; And that would lead toinefficiencies that would be harmful to the welfareOf_the_lejOrity; Any insistnce on carving the pie intoeqOal_Slides would shrink_thesize Of the pie. That fact pose0 the tradeoffbetween economic equality and economic efficiency.'

The social goals of efficiency and equityare the cornerstones of public finance theory as applied tO theanalysis of social services much as community college OdUciitiOn. The next two sections elaborate

on these two principlet and Apply each tosome fundamental 1st:mem of community college finance.

glIktkitaitt

Two kinds of questions are central toa conceptual edheiddratiOn of community College finance- 1) how much (if any) public subsidy hould be allocated to community colleges?and 2) assuming that some public subsidy is justified; how shouldthe total finance burder be distribut2d among students/parents; federal;state and local governments; and other partieg, .g. privatephilanthropy? It follows from the above digettagion that Communitycollege servicem should be financed according to Market fOrdes; 1.e.provided by private

'producer institution* and purchased by private "consumers";unleba- public subeidióS Can be justifiedon the Immix of either ffidiendy or equity imprOVeMentl. With respect to efficiency; public finance theory suggeSts that the market winfail to allocate enough resources to a goOd dr service whichconveys public benefits; even if this conveyance falls short of thepure publie good situation. Thus a plibliO Subsidy is justified to improveallOcative efficiency if cOmmunity college benefitsscoria* At letit partially to the public rather than simply to the student*. If Only the individual studnts benefit from courses taken atI COMM-Unity collegei hovevri then their unsubaidized private ddiiii-Ohl *illgenerate an efficint level of 4 5 resources allocated to theprovisiOn of that education. It also f011ovs from the above that if bdth public and privatebenefitS eXiat from the provision ofa good Di- ervice, thena mix of public (subsidy) and private paymenta would be mostefficient,Where that mix reflects the ratio Of pUblidto private benefits. It vill be argued belay that the existenceand extent of publicbenefits from community college offerings dependsupon the type of offering. There is little loubt that some community Collegebenefits - such as a labor force better equippedto cOntribute to economic development, a more informed electoetite, lover crimerates, etc. = extend beyond theindividual stUdent. There is substantial disagreement, however, on the eXtent of these publicbenofita dbMpared to the private benefits.' Clearly, individuals enrollin thy college course for the private benefits, Witch may be categorizedas either coneumotion benefits (thepure benefits from learningVhich enhance either present or future quality of life withoutnecessarily enhancing income) or triveistrnetitbenefits (incurring currentcosts with the expectation Of receivinghigher income am a resultin the future). This frame:mirk in turn is useful in clageigyingcommunity college activities: by type of benefit,and eXamining the financing implications. F011oVing the pathbreaking VOrk of Breneman and Nelson,'comMunity college offerings can be loostply CategorizedInto one of three Classifications: 1) inveStMenti in generalhuman capital' 2) investments in specific hilisien -capital; and 3)courses or activities that predominantly gonerati Current or futureconsumptiOn benefits

4 6 With little or no inveatment benefits; InVeStMents in general human capital would include general liberal artimeducation similar to the

first two yearn at traditiOnal fOUr=yetitcolleges and universities,as veIl as remedial or d6VelOpmehtalcourses that do not receive college credit. There are clearly sOMe public benefits ofthe type mentiOned earlier resulting frOM general liberalarts education, but private benefits are aled significant. On a continuum between no public subSidy (full cost tuition) and totalsubsidy (nd tuition), about all that can be said is that the mostefficient priding policy lies somewhere between the extremes; The general existence of high subsidies for such kinds of course* aUggoatsthat the public values this education sufficiently td rejedtanything approaching full cost pricing; However, there it tote deuht as to whetherthe public benefits are commensurate With currentsubsidy levels. Remedial or deVelOpMental educationconstitutes a much different type of investment in general human capital. Although individuals benefit greatly from coMpletion of thelaecourses,individual decisions in a private, unsubsidtzed market willresult in the provision of little remed1 education; Hot only will Many individuals whomight benefit from such remedialcourses be unable to pay for them (an equity argument), but theyaro alSO lediet likely to appreciate the private beneftts and face thegreAteat rim& of failure. Such basic education is roughly analOgoU4to elementary-secondary schooling. The public benefits are quits high,although the costs of remedial and developmental edUcatiOn it*also likely to be high. Thus, a came can be made on'efficiendy groundsthat the level of public subsidy for

4 7 remedial education should be dignificarAlyhigher than that for liberal arts education becauseof the more serious failureof the private market. Breneman and Mvlson argue thatzero is probably the most efficient price.

Courses that fall into thecategory of vocationalteChnical programs can be döniidered investments in specific huMen capital. They prepare Students fora fairly narrow range Of jobs by teaching

specifid Skills. Courses in this category typidallylead to an

associate degree or certificate,and most students are Interestedin improving employment prospadtain a particular line of work; The investment nature of the privatebenefits Is clear, but the magnitude

of these actual privata benefitshas been the subject ofsot* controversy. There may also be a number ofpublic benefits resulting from vocitional-technical education. The labor force generally becomes more productive, althoughthis enhanced productivity is

probably more concentratedin the local community than inthe case with investments in generalhuman capital. This suggests that efficiency would be Improved withgreater local government subsidies, as compared with larger stateor federal subsidies for the latter. It may even be thecase that individual firms orgroups of firms in the community enjoy moot ofthe external benefits from certain

vocational programs, in whichcalm efficiency would dictatethat these

firms 'should contributesignificantly toward their support. In general, the xilstence ofooth private and public benefit&once again suggests that the effidient levelof tuition is well aboVe Zero but less than full coat. 4 8 Most community service-type programs providecurrent or future private consumption benefits, with few ifany itiVestment benefits. Most courses in this category are nOlitiCadeMic innature, are not part of * specific program or Sequence, and do notresult in college credit or formal credetitiala. EdOnOMid theory implies that user charges (the equivalent Of full dOlit tuition)are the efficient way to finance activitied that provide only private benefits. However, soma community eervice courses, suchan child care or nutrition, may entail sighifiCant public benefits as weII. The local community would be the molt efficient source for public subsidies toOUpport theme kinds of courses. In the absence of such demonstrable public benefits,the efficiency criterion suggests full CObt tuition forcommunity servi6e COUTOOm;

Application of the effiCiondy standard results i:z several general guidelines, but rid Apedific prescriptions, forcommunity college

finance decisiOns. Tuition for traditional academic courses andMOSt vocational Offerings should be significantlygreater than zero, but less than full cost, with subsidiescoming from both local and state governMents. Most remedial 6oureem should be offered itlittle or no diridt cost to the students. Vocational courmal that are targeted at Spedific employers should receiveconaidarabla support from these firms. Personal enrichment course* shOtildrely on lamer fees, and public service offerings on fee&And lOdal Support. Given the sizable private benefits from many typal OfdomMunity college courses, an efficient tuition polidy Might generallycall for somewhat higher tuition levels than Ate Currently inexistence. 4 9 Since community colleges are the socially chosen institutions for

achieving equality of opportunity for post-secondary education,equity is a fundamental concern in their finance policy. Unfortunately, there is no widespread consensun on what in meant by equity or equality of educational opportunity; The discipline of eCOhoMiCS emphasizes the distribution of income in considering equity, With equity policies focusing on redistribution of ihOdee through taxing and government expenditure programs. Although equity prindiples clearly call for some subsidies to higher education, the literature is quite mixed With regard to both the equit: effects of current subsidy programs and the optimal subsidy poltcy.s At least two desirable equity goals might receive fairly widespread support- 1) the likelihood of attending and w..ucceeding tn college should be theteam* for individuals of equivalent ability, regardless of income; and 2) qualified individuals of all income levela ehould reCeiVe edUdatiOnie of comparable value;

Community colleges in principle are a major Vehicle for improved equity in higher ducation because of their misaion to provide access for the disadvantaged and other nontraditional students; Some critics contend, however, that community colleges may actually hinder the attainment of equitable ducational opportunities because they attract some students who would otherwise seek a "better" four-year college ducation; Even if this is true in some cases, as it almost certainly the evidence supports the conclusion that the improvedaccess for many from community college education clearly outweighs the equity 50 lOeses for the relatively few who mighthave been better off at a fOUr-year institution.

Lov tuition has been theraditiOflal foUndation of financing - policies designed to attract lOV=indOmestudents to community

colleges. This low price polidy hal, however,been difficult to maintain in many states in recentyears given tight budget constrainto. More recently, the iesue haw oftenbeen translated into a policy choice between the low tuition/lowaid approach and the higher tuition/higher aid alternative. Economists have frequently advocated the superiority of the hightuitioh/high aid policy on efficiency grounds. As noted abov, the generally lo*tuition levels (high subsidies) currently in xistencnat community colleges may nut reflect the actual ratio of private topublic benefits. If the higher tuition/higher aid strategycan also be deemed preferable on equity grounds, then a rare opportunitymay exist to improve both equity and efficiency with the name policy. There is in fact considerable conceptual support for this conclusion.

States vary significantly in theextent to which they achieve the traditional goal of low (or no)tuition for community colleges. Similarly, there is much variationin the availability of state student aid to offset tuitionand related costa. In general, tates do appear to be choosingbetween high tuition/high aid and low tuition/low aid strategies. Heir York state, for example, hasone of the highest average tuitionlevell, but also providesone of the highest percentages of fulltime dOmmunity college students with financial assistance from stateatd. North Carolina, for example, has 51 apparentl; adopted the opposite approach.'

From an equity perspective, thechoice betveen the tvo pricing

policies depends on a comparisonbetveen the effectiveness ofa dollar of tuition subsidy versuSa dollar of student aid in affecting the enrollment decisions of potentialstudents from different income classes. Unfortunately, no hard empirical evidenceexists on this

question for Community colleges. It is undeniable, hdivever, thata 10V tUitiOn policy (highsubsidies) in effect proVides thesame dollar subSidy to every community collegestudent, regardless of need.

Econbmic theory suggests thepreference for allowing tuition torise to the level dictated byefficiency considerations, i.e. fullcoet times the ratio of priVate benefitsto lull benefits; For exaMple. if the full cost for a giVencourse is *500 and the ratio of priVate benefits to full benelrits iseatimated to be .80, the effiCiendy

criterion taken Albne would suggesta tuition rat* Of *400 fr,r that course and a public subsidy of *100to reflect the 20% public benefit. In terMA Of equity, tho reducedsubsidy coUld be reallocated to state programs which provide aidbased upon need. For example, if the

prior tUition levet for thishypothetical course was 1100 (implyinga subsidy of *400), the *300 "saved"from the higher tuition charge

dbuld be reallocated tostate student aid targeted towardstudents Vith the greatest inabilityto pay for community college service*.

The net price (actualtuition minus student aidper course) VOUld

increase for some anddecline for others. tii-Cit a policy change would allow policy maker*to target the same amount ofcommunity dellege ,atd to those vho Moilt needassistance in offsetting the highe 52 tuition, while reducing the across-the-board subsidy for thosewho are lead needy; To the extent that much a policy would iMprOVe access fOr lOirer income etudents vis-a-vis the Iow tuttion/low aidalternative, both equity and efficiency could bee enhancedseimultaneousli. The main ddihdlustiOri fro* applying the equity criterion to the issue of community college fitiehde is an ironic one - the low tuition policy which is often emphasized I. Community colleges'no;st important contribution to equity may bevery-6Uipedt on equity grounds. /t in quite true that inadequate financial sid Informationand bureaucratiC barriers may deter ot lower-Income students from enrolling, but the additional revenues generated from higher tuition and 1014Ce institu- tionalitUbeidiem could also be used to overcome these barriers as well se to lOWer the het price for lover-income students; Therefore, the higher tuitiOn/highee Aid Steatogy often recommerded by economists on fficiency grounds may tiled prOVidtp more equitable opportunitieeto pursue higher education.

QaMMLMEUNDE An noted at the outset, while the applicetiOn of economictheory to issues of community college finance may provide an enlightening framework and useful policy guidelines, specific policy recommendations must be tailored to the realitiim of real world COMpliCationg and political priorities. To take but one of many real wOrld complications, many need-based laid programs exclude from Cligibility any stUdent vho is not registered for at least a half-time load. GiVin the SighifiCant number of part-time community college students who are therefOre not eligible fOr OUdh aid programs, the 53 theoretical Conclusion favoringa high tuttton/high aid financing policy May seem less ipràpr±It. ii political realities preclude any change in the eligibility criteria for theseaid programa, thit fedt May very well aler the practical implicationsOf the theOretical conclusions. However, it would be desirable Where pössible to liberalize these eligibility standards andproceed with the higher tuttion/higher aid policy, rather than tOsimply reject the conceptual implications ais irrelevant. Economic analysis does, therefore, yield a number of Modest improvements that could'be madein local; state and federal VAVitriding of community colleges.

5 4 ENDNOTES

1) See-_fOr example, S. Heison,_ of-littident-Financie1Assistance,_(New Yorkk College Entrance Examination Board, June 1980)1_L. GladiedX, Distribution of Federal Student_Assistanc44 Two-7Year gollipaeto, (HS4 York: College Entrance_Examinatitin Board,1975); J. Rusio, "Community College StUdentAidi A Hard Look from Withilv" AFebruary 1976),_pp..20=27; W._Garms, Finantinc-COAMUnity Coll:Kies.(Columbia Universityl Teachers College Press,1977); Ci_CIark, "Two-Year_C011egesand Finance_Equity: _The Case ofCalifornia," report_to the Ford Foundation (LOA Angeles:Western Center on Lav and_PoVerty,1981); S. Martorana *heJoWattenbargeri_ZrAng e e i-!- .r--xt 3.7 tr.mrs !PO ..cra tit II. .41r State, sport 32 (PennsylvaniaState univerlitY_, Center forthe Study_Of Higher Education,1978); and edpedially D. Brenemunand S. NOledn, FinancinacsumanAlikagtEeprictivw, (Washington, D.C.: TheBrookings Institution, 1981.) 2) See R. MUsgrave and P.Musgrave, PUbilc Finance inThoory-amd ErAttitei (New York:McGraw-Hill, 1973)i 3) A.Okuni gamaitLAffiLi&uzikthettefai(Washington: The Brookings Institution,1975)0 p. 48. 4) S44, for examplej Cirnegio_Commission on HigherEduCatiOnoHicher u t : - t A..-1 (He* York: McGraw-HiII, 1973)j H.Beilien, Individual-and-SO:dial-Value ofAmerioan-HIcher-EdUttetion, (Sen Francisco: _Jtissey-Bass,1977); I% SchUltML !Optimal Investment in C011egeInstruction: Equity and. Effidiency," Journal.-of-Ptliticel Economy; (May7June, 1972); J.Pechman, °DistributiOhel Effectsof Public Higher EduOstionin California,' Journal-of-HUM-AnRmeources, (Summer, 1970). 5) Brenesan and Nelson,gjusaj6.0 pp. 47=53 6) On_thik iliul, see IC Hansen mnd 8._WeilibrOdoDonefits Coste;-- saCrujuinctiLstz_p_sthusauaraiuuttiki (Now York: HarkhaiN 1969); Pechman,_ oo.cit.;J. Conlisk, wA Ftirther Lookat_the Hansen7 WoisbrOd=Pechman Debat," 1977); G. Moore, gownwsl-df-Hulian Resources,_(Spring, °Equity Effects of_HighwrEducation Finance and TuitiOli Grunts in NewYork State," Journal of Human_ (Fall, 1978). Reeources,

7) Sten-saint and Hellion, go,dit., Table =7 and Op. 104=06. 55 Mission and Images for SUNY Community Colleges:

A vlev frOm Within

Barbara K. Townsend

Loyola University of Chicazo

820 North Michigan Avenue

Chicago, Illinois 60611

5 6 In any discussion of new or curreat missions for the community

college, same people attribute social functions to the institution which

others see as little related to the educational functions described in

the mission statement. Thus one person redirg misdion statement sees

an indication of what educational goala the institution most values, while another sees social class trac%ingor perversion of the concept of college; Since these conflictik:g perspeCtiVes Uttally go unstated, we end tip with people talking 2.2:1 one another rather than with one another; TO avdid this situation and to Clarify the terms of the dis- course regarding missions and images of community colleges, I want to briefly categorize what I w.le as the three major viewpointsor stances about the community college:

1) First we hav,, 1.he Eieftists, those whoare politically left of

capitalism and thus are advocates for a classless society. They

view the community college with distaste because it isseen by

them as an agent of capitalism, trsining people from blue-

collar backgrounds for blue-collar jobs or lower-level middle-

class jobs, and in so doing, iS replicating 'hecurrent class

structure with'all its obviouS inequities..

2) Then there are the Rightists, who alsoview the community

college With distaste but for different reasons. To the

Rightists, and by this I mean educational elitists, thecom-

&Unity c011ege is primariIi responsible for the dilution of

édUdational standards in higher education since it is the higher education primary agent or meansfor opening up itself off as acollege to the masses.It tries to pass offers vocational although clearly itis not because it basic English, math,and training and remedialprograms in wouldn't "make the reading, and admitsstudents who clearly However, the grade" in any reputablecollege or university. least it keeps the community college isof use because at colleges. educational riffraff awayfrom the"real" those who vieweduca- 3) Finally, we havethe Mainstreamitts, orientation, i.e. tion within aconventional political education for capitalism, and who believein the merits of elite. To the all, not just theintellectual and social as the path to Mainstreamists thecommunity college serves who gains both edu- upward mobility for manyan individual i result of attending the communication and a betterjob as

ty college. categories with broadstrokes, o- I've drawn theoutlines of these to give you a feelfor the mitting some nuances,but the purpose Vitt with which any data onthe community college three major perspectives perspectives, the onedof might be interpreted.Notice that of these stand outside of thecommunity the Leftists andthe Rightists seem to and distant from the college, viewing it an an'other," something alien understood by theperceiver, but perr ,ver(I would like to add not Indeed, many of thosewho hold theseperspee-tives that ISdebatable); college: rarely havethey ever are literaloutsiders to the community college. taught or been anadministrator in a community

58 3

TO Me the intriging questions then become, "HOW do those whoare within the institution see the institution? What do they want itto be?" In essence, these are the questions which gUided My studyof SONY com-

munity Colleges conducted lastyear and are the;focus of my presentation today. NOW to the study;

Last fall I asked a randomly seldted eample of 362 full-timefacult;- and all senior-level adminiz"..tatOrS (preSidents, vice-presidents,and deans) of the thirty SONY cotMunity C011eges tocomplete a questionnaire

. _ regarding their preferences tot foUr institutional directionSand Seiren images for SONY community c011eges in general and for theirotin inStitu- tion in particular. Here iSa listing of those directionS and images:

Institutional Directions:

1) Academically Oriented Two-Year-College - This institutionwould

COMMit most of itsresources to degred=grantingprograms in both

acadethic (transfer) andoccupational=technicaI education while

Minimizing community serviceeiiVities. In addition, it would have a general education ddte reqUired of aIl students.Of all possible educational direCtiOnS for the communitycollege* this

one would obviously be the Mostacceptable to the educational

elitists; or the Rightiets Imentioned earlier. 2) Community-Rased-Learning Center - Edmund Gleazer, theChief proponent of this direction, views this as an inttitutionwhich

would de=eophseite the formaistructure of credit hours and

cotrses, and serve as a center ofa cOMmunity learning network where students are linked up with someone or someplace that-

can teach them what they want to know. Such an institution

would be considered educationally frivilous by the Rightists

and irrelevant by the Leftists.

3) Comorehensive Community College- Basically this direction is

the current one of most community colleges. It involves giving

approximately equal emphasis to the transfer; occupational=

technical, and community service programs of the institution.

It is a Mainstreamist approach or perspective to the institution.

4) R-:-stsecondary Occuoat-ione2-Trainirig-Center- Such an institUtion

would concentrate upon occupational training almost exclusively

and in cooperation with industrial establishments as much as

possible. There would be very limited offerings in the.humani-

ties and social sciences. Such an institution would clearly be

anathema to the Leftists; who could then say; " I told you

community colleges were agents of capitalism," and to the

Rightists, who, while snubbing it educationalv;ould at least

be pleased the wordcollege" was no longer in its title.

The images survey respondents could choose from were these:

1) Democratization-of-higher -education- associates the community

college with the opening up of higher education throughopen

admissions and low Cost.

2) 11A-Second ,-bance' for people- offers this to people who have

previously done poorly in an academic setting. 5

3) SaMething for everybodg-; indicates the COMMUnity college's

willingness to reach out and be, inessence, an things to all people;

- enables the institution

to be seen as Offering "everything" froman educational or curricular perspective.

5) A-col-lege-for- ittCommunity - indicates the institutiOnit

respOttiVenets to cor unity needs;

6) Excellende in teaching- highlights the emphatit Combtnity

college-a place on teaching (asopposed to reSeardh) and thus on the student.

7) A student-oriented institution-- emphasiteS an institutional

focus upon the student rather thanthe faculty or the content of the curriculum.

Collectively these images i.eflect thethree major components of the

mission of today's cOMmunity collegesas seen by the MainstreaMittt:

open access; comprehensive curriculum; andcommunity/local Orientation. The images of "a deMocratiiing institution" and "a 'teCond ChAnde'for people" stet directly from the componenlof open addett, 14.hilethe images of "excellence in traching" and "astudent=ori4tited inatitution" reflect the cOMMUnity college's willingnessto provide fdt the academic needs of non=traditional students,an indication of itt openness. The images of

"SOMething for everybody" and "acomprehensive tWO-Year curriculum"stem from the component of comprehensive curriculum, while theimage bf "a 6

college for its community" reflects the component of community/local orientation.

As I indicated earlier, both faculty and senior-level administrators were asked to indicate their preferences for these images and directions;

In addition, they were asked some demographic questions such as their age, sex, and number of years of teaching or administrative experience in an effort to determine possible correlations between preferences and these characteristics.

What were the results? First of all, a fairly high response rate was obtained: 77% for the administrators with 76% of these usable; a

61% response rate for faculty with 60% of these usable. Next, frequency distributions and percentages of the preferences revealed the following:

1) There was close agreement between senior-level administrators

and faculty about the preferred institutional directions of

SUNY community colleges. Each group most preferred the direc-

tion of Couprehensive Community College, both for SUNY community

colleges as a whole and for their own campuses. Specifically,

81% of administrators and over 75% of the faculty preferred this

direction for their own campus, while 80% of the administrators

and almost 77% of the faculty desired this direction for SUNY

community colleges in general.

2) Therewas little supoort for the other three directions. That

of Academically Oriented Two-Year College was the second most

preferred, but it did not garner much support. Over 12% of the

administrators and over 18% of the faculty preferred this direc=

tion for their own campus, while almost 16% of administrators and almost 19% of faculty preferred this direction for SUNY

in general; As this direction is most closely allied tO the

stance of the educational elitists or Rightists, it would seem

that there is little support within the-community college (or

at least within SUNY community colleges) for such a stance.

3) The directions of Community-Based Learning Center and Post-

secondary Occupational Training Center received little support.

Fewer than 5% of the administrators and 2% of the faculty de-

sired the direction of Community-Based Learning Center for their

own campus. oniy 3.3% of the administrators and 1.8% of the

faculty desired this direction for SUM community colleges in

general.

Agreement on preferred images vas not as clear cut but did f011OW similar patterns for each group:

1) The image most desired by adtinistrators for theirown campus

wa"College for Its Community" (36.7%), f011owed by "Excellence

in Teaching" (23.3%), and then "Comprehensive TWO-Year Curricuum"

(14.4%). These same itages were also the top three choicesfor

the faculty for their own campus but to a different extent. Fac-

ulty most preferred the image of "Excellente in Teaching" (32%),

then "A College for Its Community" (16.9%), closely followed by

"Comprehensive Two-Year Curriculum" (15.5%).

2) For SUNY community colleges in general administrators preferred

the same images that they did for their own campus: 26.7%pre-

ferred "A College for Its Community," 17.8% preferred 'acellence 8

in Teaching," and 16.7% preferred "Comprehensive Two-Year

Curriculum." Faculty preferences varied, both from the admini-

strators' and from their own preferences for their individual

campuses. For SUNY in general, faculty preferred that"Excel=

lence in Teaching" be the dominant image'(35.2%), followed by

"Comprehensive Two-Year Curriculum" (15.5%), and then "Some-

thing for Everyone" (13.7i);

The attempt to findcorrelations between demographic characteristics and preferences (in other words, to find out EhEraculty and administrators preferred the directiont and images that they did) yielded only minimal results and shall be passed aver today to that we can concentrate on discussion and implications of the preferences themselves.

What do these results suggest to us? As I mentioned earlier, thel.e is strong agreement between SUNY community college faculty and administrators about the preferred direction fc,- SUNY community colleges, au agreement I found somewhat surprising betse of the stereotype we all have of administrators and faculty always .trig in opposing camps: the we-they mentality. It utuld seem to me to b.%, vc,11 fiJ,-7 the future of

SUNY's community colleges that faculty and 1:.t.ratri.77s concur so closely in their preferences for the dirte, liastitutions.

It is much easier for a directiön to be i.hid-red i f those 2%.:sponsible for achieving it are in agreement about it and in of it.

The direction of Academically Orientel:. Two-Year Conegei which is the one direction that would move the coalmunity college towards becoming a more educationally prestigious (at least in the eyes of educational elitists or Rightists) did n)t receive much support from either SUNY community college faculty or administrators. I found the

faculty's relative lack of support for this direction somewhat sur=

prising since one could argue that teaching in such an institution

might be more prestigious for faculty than teaching in the compre=

hensive community college; Also; students attending suchan institU=

tion would presumably be more academically Oriented and thUt eatierto

teach than the usual community college student.

/ was also intrigued by the lack -Of both administrative and faculty

support for the more radical or innovative ideas about the community

college, i.e. the Community-Based Learning Center and the Postsecondary

Occupational Training Center. Is this lack of support because thosein

academe are inherently conservative (another stereotype),or is it be-

cause the respondents in the survey think these directions have merit but find that of Comprehensive Community College the mostmeritorioue

We don't know at this point, but I would suggestthat it is important that those who are outsid.1 the institution, those who only know about the community college f!= what they read, beaware that those within the institution do not serlm to suppot some of the directionsso blithely espoused by people '1-0 ai '111Ally fax removed from -:-;ne everyday workings of the institutiOn. OtiJ,44:i7 N;Ordsi I find a discernable gap between

"hatidhal" Vitions fov the c.ormlin.ity collegeand the vfsions of those

1*104116 who are the instiution: its lacay and adminirators.

As regards prelfstP imgcz, interesting ednfigUratións appear when we examino;- V:trr r of t'ae:,. re1ationThiPf4 to the three components of the comilvt.t:i c11e IsiJr1 mentioned earlie.--- open access, comprebentiit tye community orientation.

6 5 10

For example, the two imag s most clearly indicative of open access--

democratization of higher education and providing a 'second chance'--

recetved little support by either group for their own campus: a combined

total of 5.5% from administrators and 7.3% from.faculty. For SUNY com-

munity colleges in general, the support was somewhat greater: 15.5% from

administrators and 13.7% from faculty. Is the greater support for these

images.for SUNY in general as opposed to one's own institution an exam-

ple of, "Let someone else do it"?

The fdculty in the study seemed to experience some tension

ing open access judging from their responses to an open-2nded quest:.

about the future of St"TY's community colleges. Of the 36% of tLe ulty Tato wrote comments, 15 of them mentioned open access in some way.

While a few of the comments were supportive of open access, the more typical comment indicated a desire for a more academically able student and a skepticism about the value of completely open access. For example, we have such comments as these:

"I think_far too much of (thelcommunity college'sresources are spent in remediation. _MUch_of_what weout of necessity, do shoUld have been accomplished either on the secondary_

level or at an institution . . . prior to matriculation."

"The most serious problem we face is the large number of students not doing any meaningful amount of work on home- work. I believe one reason for this is the completely open admissions coerced by Albany (headquarters for SUNY central administration], robbing the student of any pride in being accepted."

"I am concerned about lowering entrance standards; I am wholeheartedly in _favor of the 'open access'_idea, but, do students with 3rd_grade reading levels belong in tsly. college?

6 In compariSon, Mhild fiVe of the administrators alluded to access,

it was always in a positive vein and never critical or questioning. For

example, wt have the folloWing:

"The community college may_be the best yehicle for im.=. Proving access to higher education and for upgrading educational skills.. It should certainly strive to do so."

"Ideally, the community college must retain open_access for a lot of_reasons including the obVious evolution_ = which is occurring in the public and private univerSitieS."

How can we interpret these differences? Perhaps for senior-leVel

adMinistrators, open access and its corollary, remedial programs, do not

prOVOke the same concern asthey&th faculty because the admstrators

don't haVe te be in the ClaSSroom contending daily with the results of

an open admissionS polidy. The VieW from the top is almostalways different

than the view from the

The other tmo images somewhat linked to the component of open access were "Excellence in Teaching" and "A Student Oriented InStitutiOn. Not

surprisingly, faculty were most enthusiastic about the image Of "Excel=

Ience in Teachingi" both for their own campus (32%) and for SUNY COM= munity colleges in general (35.2%); Administrators were certainly siip= portive of this image, but to a lesser extent: 233% for their own campus and 17.8% for SOY in general; Perhaps that is because promotion of

Stich ith image UtUld be far more beneficial to the status and egc of faculty than Of adminiStratOrs. AS regards the image of "A Student Oriented

Institution*" I found it both intriging and surprising that so few admini-

strators and faculty supported this image: fewer than 7% of theadMini;., strators or faculty preferred this image for either their own campUs Or for SUNY community colleges in general.

While the component of-open access gets little support (in terms of 67 choices for preferred images) from either administrators or faculty, the

other tuo components (comprehensive curriculum and community/IocaI ori-

entation) receive more support. However, faculty are more supportive of

the images reflective of the component of the cdmprehensive curriculum

while administrators are more supportive of the image pertaining to the

community orientation component. Most likely, these preferencea fall out

as they do because faculty are more immediately concerned with the curr-

iculum than are administrators. Also, senior-level administrators would

tend to concern themselves more than faculty do with the external rela-

tions of the institution, its ties to the community.

In sum, then what can we conclude about "insiders" attitudes toward

the community college from all of this? -

I) First of an, those within the institution basically support

the status quo: the direction of the community college as an

institution wit31 a comprehensive curriculum, providing trans-

fer programs, vocational training, and community service.

2) While not desing that the community college becomea more

educationally elite institution, those within it do not want

its open access policy to be its dominant quality or charac-

teristic in the public's mind.

These are not earthshaking conclusions. What they do add to the

critical debate about the social role of the community college is to in=

dicate that those within the institution seem to believe in what it is currently doing: providing an opportunity for community members tore-

68 13

ceive some college-level work and some occupational training. LeftiSts may decry these efforts as politically insignificant, and Rishtittmay

denigrate.them as educationally lacking, but most community college faculty and administrators == in SUNY at least -= Will continue to function (and I think function Well) in the inStitution that does indeed offer "something fitit tittybody.' HOW long it can continue to do

86 'With the fUnding dOndernS prompted by today's economy and withcompe- tition froM Other sectors of education is debatable-- but that is a topic for smother conference.

69 Comments on Paper Delivered by Professor Barbara Townsend (Oct-Ober 10; 1986)

The Social Role of the Community College

A Conversation in the. DiSciplihes,Cdi==sponsored By Broome County Community College and SUNY at Binghamton, October 10 - 11, 1986

Holiday Inn, Binghamton,,New York

Gene Grabiner, Ph.D. Erie Community College City Campus Buffalo; NOW YOrk I would like to thank Professor Townsend 'for her

interesting research which so well defended the community college in its present cL.nfiguration. And I have some general comments about the social role of the communitycollege and the critics of this inti.!;ution.

Dean Steven Zwer!,.irc. )1PS .%aid:

NOt only it maIntaining the sr,(71.!:.: hierarchy a

primary function of the communii'sy college, but the

community college is also remarkably- effective at

the job. It takes students whose parents are

characterized primarily by lbw income and

educational achievement and slots them into the

lower ranks of the industrial and commercial society; The community college is in fact a. social

defense mechanism that resists changes in social 'structure (Second Best: The Crisis of the Junior College, New York: McBraw-Hill, 1976:xix).

Now, Zwerlingcannot seriously assert tha'; social structure has changed so profoundly in Americaas to 'really. yield mass upward social mobility exclusive of the community college experience. Such a view is rejected in all the major mobility studies. Apart, therefore, from the nonexistenceof MASS "changes in social structure", One in agreement with

gLwerling's conclusions might accept the view that upward

SOCial mobility (itself a shorthand dkpreddion for the pertistence of social inequality) is;a) the Measure and aim Of All education and, b) that it otturt Metre' or less

regularly in social spheres otherthar. he cOMMUnity college. ih addepting thisview we might alt0 buy int-6 the notion (naive; arrogant, elitistor otherwise) that eMplOymentamong

the "10Wer ranks of the industrialand commercial society"--

e.g., Computer repair, para-Iegai, nursing; respiratory' therapy etc. == is undesirableand inegalitarian. Thit would be the case if such workers werepaid loss thAn judges, attorneys, and phyticiansetc, as they are in thit society. And that merely reflects extantsocial structure as eXpressed through ail standard prestige-ranking scales; But, We Could reasonably query many criticsof the community college; "When

your computer breaksdown, Who repairs itT", "Is that Hispanic-American nurse tending t6 your son's compound fracture in theemergency room performing sociallynecessary labor?", "Is regular respiratory Card for your emphysemic tit-idle a warranted socialcontributio ?" etc.

In 19479 3.13. Bernal, the late Professor of CrystallOgraphy at the UniversityOfLondonhad already remarked Oh the centralityand basic social nedessity ofboth scientific-technical training and literacy (eVen amongnon- 72 practitioners) as sine non for rational social development in the period of the scientific-technological

revolution. (Bernal, J.D.; The Fregdom of Negessity, London: rrutledge & Kegan Paul, 1949). (Even theoretical physicists r4quire synchrotron repair.) Along with Zwerling, another of the important guideposts to the current critique of the community college is Professor

Tinto, wh,:(based upon the scarcity postulate...i.e., there

are only so iFdany stuccints) attacks the 'upstart' community college because of the "substitution effect". In essence,

Tint-r- blames the community college for puiling low income

students away from four-yearcolleges (Tinto teaches at Syrcusn University) and he is upset that we do this (Tinto, Vincent. "College Proximity and Rates of College Attendance", AmgrIcan gdggatlonal Rgggargh Journal 10: 273-293). Many of the major studies ce.g., Monk-Turner, Anderson, Velez etc.) (Monk-TurTler, Elizabeth. 1983. "Sex Educational

Differentiation and Occupational Status." S2SI2logical guartgrIy 24: 393-404, (liderson, Kristine. 1981. "Post-High

School Experiences and CollegeAttrition." Soctology of gdugation 54: 1-15, Velez, William. 1985; "Finishing College: The eflrects of College Type." Sociology of EduoatIon 58: 191- 200) conclude that, after controlling for students' OES, the community college still p.-ovides lower quality pre- baccalaureate and university parallel education and is 73 ...... educationally deficit-ridden in other areas; However, many of -these same studies eschew, neglect or ignore variables such as occugational characteristics and educational attainment

(Anderson. 1984)0 asgirations and high school record (Monk- Turner, 1983) etc; which are also, not surprisingly, mediated restatements of SESand social class -- as are also the very

internal structures, teaching loads, administrative sponsorship and financial supportand faculty pay scales (in general, the academic division of labor) at all

. levels of higher education (on the continuum fromErie Community College to Harvard). Perhaps community colleges should be provided with more resources, redLze :eaching loads, better pay etc; After all there is no scientifically warranted nor historically required and neccessary connection between a V28000per annum' salary for a Starting university level assistant professor who teaches two courses per semester, do-et research and publishes and a $16000 per annUm Salary for a starting community college instructor who teachet fiVe dbLietet per semester and who might teach three add:tional OVerlOads per semester Thotentially lessening ovetall qudlity of service delivery, with its possible rellon to the attritiOri question) for a total of $20000 per year just to mAke ends meet.

5 Let us remember that the openadmissions community

C011ege, as agenuine aspect of the democratization of

American higher education. (likethe earlier -Jc'rjd war

/I GI Bill. .41-iich led the creation in 1948 of the Erie County TeChnicAl Institute -- later.Erie Community College)

brought intb the tertiary level students who would, otherwise have never gone it'&:-callege. In many quarters this has been part of the general Struggleagainst racism and sex discrimination and for increAted levels ofworking class participation in hiOher edUcation. And despiteeven community college reticence about itg role AS an open access college, we must view this open access in LOOtrAst to current Ati-

democratic calls for the sgentanebUt e.=-Anstitution of standards and the re-insinuationbg the elite gharagter of

higher egugation. Minorityand wOrking=d1Atsstudents may

have to fight hard to hold on in community colleges (and Struggle to preserve open admissions, At well) Against the baCkdrop of intensified economiccrises and their educational impact on middle class students -- which force the latter to

look More favorablyupon thesecolleges entrypointS into higher education.

Finally. I think that wein the community colleges ought reasonably to ask; "Why are we in the belljar?". "Why are we under the microscope?". "Why are we coming in for such close scrutiny?".. "And why hge" In Brecht's playe GaIlleo, the people snatch the telescope from the hands of the great;astronomer and turn it

on their tormentors; princes, nobles, church. Perhaps we

ought to studyuniversityfaculty and administration and

educational policy leaders; I suspect that, evenearly on

with Clark (Mark, Burton. "The COoling Out Function in Higher Education," AmericanJournal af Socoloav. 1960, 65:

569-576) Pincus (Pincus, Fred L. "Tracking in Community Colleges," Insurgent SogAoIogist Vol; V, No. 1, Spring, 1974:

17-35) and Trimberger (Trimberger, Lilen Kay. "Open Admissions: A New Form of Tracking?i" Insurgent Socologist,

Vol; IV, No. 10 Fall, 1973:.29-42), the economic cantextwas (and is) lurking in the.background --though lately, more in the:foreground --asthe real secret heart of the current Critique of thecommunitycollege. This may now become more oovious with the enrollment and retentioncrises, perceived as functions of underlying fiscal and economic crises bearing heavily on all higher education. Could it be that current calls fOr community collegere-structuring and the general attack on thiS inttitution (presentayso embattled in the literature) areactually wails of academic seIf-defense emanating from the universities as misplaced responses to general economic decline," militarization ofthe economy and concomitant reduction of support for public highereducation7 Wouldn't it be better if all sectors of highereducation 76 Cooperate in working-for increased support at alllevelS With CoMpanion call for Winding downthe arms race?We Might begin at the pollSthit November. The Humanities and the-I'New Student": Some_Possibilities fox SocialTransformation

L. Steven Zwerling Overview

The issues are stark. The role of education in America is once again undergoing reexamination. This time, officials with substantial power to write and rewrite public policyare questioning the effectiveness of public education. AII interventions of the last five decades from open access to bilingualism topre-schooI efforts to student aid are under scrutiny==some would claim under threat. Perhaps no more dramatic and fundamental is the current excellence debate. Critics challenge educators, appropriately, to look at their curricula (they are in "disarray" it is claimed), their general education offerings (they are virtually non=existant it is

claimed), at the communication and computational skillsof students (in decline it is claimed).

Less often in this debate does one hear voices calling out about issues of equity. Harvard's core curriculum may have undergone reasonably successful revision, but what about predominateIy-bIack

Lawson Community College's curriculum/ The occupational chances may be bright for computer science graduates of the California Institute of Technology, but what are the chances foryoung people and adults without complete secondary or post-secondary educations? In earlier decades, those without adequate formal education could find employment in walufacturing, in public works--road building, electrification projects, subway construction. With their muscles and effort, people could provide for themselves. their families==especially for their children by encouraging and enabling them to go to and stay in school. 78 Today there are few suca jobs. T1- few blue collar jobs still existing are often onlyopen to or union members.

Even entry level positions in today's serviceecutomy require aLl.4 skills one acquires via schoolingcommunicatiansand analytical skills, keyboard competency. customerreIaaons skills. Access to better jobs, to careers requires higher-leveIcompetencies acquired only via more extbasive schoolingcomputerskills, critical and analytical thinking, a quantitative andtechnical orientation, interpersonal capacities.

Thus we must pay special attentionto the deStiny of minority and loW socio-economic status people whotraditionally get less than an equal share of schooling, especiallya less than equal share of the kind of schoolina now requiredfor mobility in our information society.

Access is under attack and this certainlyneeds to be resisted for its own sake. 'But access in thiscontext is not enough.Excel- lence is a legitimate issueas well. To gain the skills needed for a chance to be occupationally and personally mobil0,both the kind and oualttv of education countsas much as access to education. The challenge today is how to synthesizeaccess and exTmllence and thereby provide people withaccess to the right kinds of high- qua4ity schooling.

It may not be overly dramatic tosay that the success of our

democracy may very well rP.st on howwe confront these issues. The failure to do so will doom literally millionsof people to live their entire ?twee outside the mainstreamof the economy. Now how does this relate to my subject? More Specifically, how Can community colleges, through their hunanities offerings,play a -2- 79 democratizing role in higher education?

In brief, here is an overview of my position: Traditionalty, an

immersion in the huianities has been available to the childrenot the elite at selective colleges and universities. The lower classes, if they studied at ail, studied vocational subjects. At mcst they took a course or two in the liberal arts. Further, though general liberal education has usually been

defined by what it is not--not specialized, not vocational,not occupational--it ironically turns out to be ofmore practical value than vocational studies. Though of course the children of affluence

begin with many advantages, a Iibera: education isa "value-added" education even for them. The current opportunity structure is such that the competencies best engendered via the humanitiesare the ones required for entry-level positions as well as ultimate career success.

Thus, if the new student clienteles who begin the_r higher

education at the community college are to receive botha liberating and practical education, the humanities mudt articulatean even more ambitious agenda than currently contemplatedas it is onlv through liberal studies that students can acquire those skills theyneed to have a realistic chance to begin and then developcareers. There is also a further agenda for the humanities at community colleges. In addition to this very practical, even politically

attractive role, there are more traditional, more intrinsicoppor- tunities for those us who care about the humanities. The bottom line here, then, is that the humanities at the two-year college can be very compatible With current bottom=line higher educational realities as well as play a comprehensive role in

-3- 80 in the lives Of students in this most comprehensive of institutions.

First a little background to set thecontext for this comprehensive mission for the humanities.

The Context

Today's community colleges barelyresembles the junior college of earlier generations. Its mission has expanded; inmany ways it has become a naw institution. A test of this is the fact that familiar definitions no longer apply. We can no longer seperate the

traditional functions of the communitycollege as neatly as in the past--into collegiate, career.compensatory, and community

divisions. How does one classify an adult whoworks full-time and attends intermittently, initiallytaking skills course and then

. credit courses in business, gettingand A.A.S degree in computer

hno4ogy. and eventually transferringto a fOur-year colle7. In effect thit student fits into allfour categories. How many students take twoyears to complete work in the "two-year college"? How many "transfer students" actually

transfer?How many "terminal students" terminate? Why is it that more than half the students Who tzaneferwere from among the college's "terminal students ? Why are there now more "reverse- transfers" than "forward transfers"?Clearly the junior college .that came into being with an exclusively"college-parallel" curriculum has been transformed.

See lf developments of the last decadeseem familiarI. During the past ten years your college defined itsmission as Heomething for everyone." and in some ways it has becomeas much a community

-4- Si center as a community college. Courses in How to Make Jello coexist with others in English Literature.

Who should pay for non=credit remedialand continuing education courses has become more of an issue as thesource of funding has

shifted from the local districtto the state legislature. In most states the legislature refuses tosupport-non=credit offerings.

Thus, community college have devisedstrategies to convert asmany non=credit courses as possible to credit. The need to.offer more remedial courses has also requiredsome adjustments==to keep developmental courses small in size,other courses have felt administrative pressure to swell inenrollments. As more and more students requirefinancial aid, acalemic

contortions are uecessary to designtwelve=credit schedules that do not overtax the ability of underpreparedstudents. Credit for high=school level courses, forexample. is not uncommon asyou have struggled to keep students eligible.

The "traditional" faculty haveat _Imes opposed schemes to offer

programs off campus or via new modes ofinstruction==telecourses. correspondence courses. independentstudy. etc.

To expand enrollments, beyond acceptingall who show up for registration. Community collegeshave become aggressive in their marketing--even setting up informationand registration booths in shopping malls. This "marketing approach" hasattracted a diverse student clientele. More students are interested in individual courses rather than integratedprograms of study. Some Step in and out. Others enroll only once andare never heard from again.

Above all, the ;nstiLution is obsessed bythe numbers. The number of FTEs s the college's fiscal fate. A new

82 formulation. "seat time"--course creditenrollments on a single day during the semester==is anothermeassire of success (or failure). And administrative careersare made (or broken) as the FTEs and times-in-seat are tallied. "Bottom-line-think" also has led colleged to depend more andmore on less expensive adjunct

faculty-=now more than half the sectionsofferad are taught by parttime s.

Staff have come to expect studentsnot to complete courses much

less full programs of study. In many urban two-year collegeS,fewer than five percent of the students whosay they aspire to a degree complete that degree. Rarely are advanced-Ievelcourses offered. When they are, they are frequentlycancelled due to low enrollment.

The fact that studentsmay require them for graduation doesnot always persuade the administraton itis important to run them. This emphasis on singlecourses and the diversity of the student body has contiibuted to the deterlorationof coherent curricula--

especially the institution'sgeneral education offerings. In the absence of well-conceived curricula.many colleges have taken the

opportunity to cut their budgetsby dis-investing in counselingand academic advising. Why provide advisement whenso many students ("enrollees") sign up for individualcourses in shopAng centers? This has led to a disheartenedfaculty. They have come to feel powerless. Their traditional role as shapersof the curriculum is now largely irrelevant. Their tradi:ional roleas guardians of the traditions is unappreciated. Many now, protected by the sinecure of tenure, teach and run, feeling disalrfiliatedfrom the institution and its goals.

Does this at all sound familiar?Aa distressing as this may be, there is still more to aay twal6 ..cirther darkensthe picture. 83 (ThOugh. recall. I promise at the endto Speak also about the

exciting possibilities availableto humarOsts who want to exerta counterforce within their colleges.)

There are also significant, less wellexplored, regressive social consequences thatare the product of the newly-shaped

community college. Since the early 19708; a few ofus who have written criticallyof the community college movementhave claimed that, in spite of its democratic rnetoric.the two-year college has not ,:ontributed to the so-ialprogress of its students. Quite the opposite. Much data reveals that thevery fact of attending a

community college is a Iiabill,tyto students' academic andvoca- tional progress wh,- theirrates of achievement are compared with academically and socioeccomicallyequivalent students who begin their studies at a.four=yearcollege. There seems to be something in the culture that sadly impedesstudents' development.2 In addition to the colleces'culture inteferingwith program completion and ultimate transfer,there is also growing evidence

that the community college's muchvaunted voca;ionaI curricula do not dO an effective job in preparingeven graduates for entry-IeveI positions much less for latercareer advancement.3

Some of us see these instiiutionaI"failurec" to in fadt be an intended 1,art Of the tWO-Yeercollege's historical mission.Until recent years when fOUt=yeat dollegeswere concerned about there being too many :1-dentS fbr themto absorb, community colleges were called upon to "divert" aS many StUdentsas possible away from local senior institutions; This was in patt adcompIished throughsome- thing Burton Clark called "coolingoUt"===a process whereby the staff of the two-year college (especially theCounteling staff) acted in 84 concert to get as many students as possible ta Lowertheir aspire- tions==to move out rtranitfer into terminal programs thereby deflecting studeuts away frOm f -year colleges.4

Intended or not,- this evidence Of inetitutionaIineffectiveness is even more disturbing whenone realized that community colleges

are increasingly the college tor thedisenfrandhited. In earlier there progressive years, many four=yearcolloget Mi4ie a significant effet te recruit; support, and retainminority stintti returning women, the Underemployed, students witnas yet untamed pOtential. But as we all know too well, the numbersnow tell us that thia committment is largely over; fundsare at best scat.;:e. When one then looks within community collegesat the distribution; for example,

of white and black studentsamong coUt060 and programs, one findsa dietUrbing kind of academic tracking_withbladkd exampieunder- represented the higher-status career prograMS. The same holds true whelk, the distribution of more= andleed=affluent students.

Thus, in these various ways, communitycolleges appear tO play a role in the intergenerational reproductionof the sociial structUre-- contributing to the maintenance e!current inequities rather than their amelioration as alt the rhetOridWetld suggest.

But there is something further; SeitathingironigELLE democratic about the community college in how itnegatiVely effects all StUdents through the general; pervasivedeclifte in the culture of literaty. This finally brings us closerto thoughtS abOnt ways in whiCh the humanities can playan important role in the social transformation Of the two-year college andits students. Several rcent works that appl methods of anthropology to the study of the culture of the community collegehave noted a climate of expectations among students andstaff that works against

an emphasis on higher order cognitive skills andprocrnes. Rather than expecting and requiring students to be critival,analytical. synthetic. and original in their thinking.andcommnnicatilg, faculty frequently promote passive forms of learning that emphasizean

exchange of prepackaged bits of factual informationand th-J mccgures of reading and writing.5

Lest one is too quick to plaee all blame on thefacultyor this decline in cr4.-tical literacy, these observers also polatout that the students -7.so are not interested in higher learning: Most characteristically they seek only to satisfy therequirements of courses and prc7rams. Thua, it is claimed, students and faculty

"conspire" together to "level down"or "remedializ.1" the academic agenda foc the Institution.

There are of course ironies within ironies in allof this--the students who come with a practical orientation,seeking schooling for career-related purposes and interested only inmeeting course requirements, these students windup with a fundamentally impractical education (good perhaps at bestfor short-term results) that excludes those higher=order competencies th,tmost agree are essential to career flexibility and mobility. And the faculty who. through their disciplines and teaching, want to participate in higher education (not just in community service) windup feeling powerless and demoralized. In this RIK de- deux everyone loses.

8 6 -9- Some-Possiblilities for Social TransfotmatIon

If what I've described has the ringof familiarity, what role can the humanities play in ;he Letransformationof the contemporary community college? Actually, I'd prefer to phrasethe quedtion somewhat differently: What role must the humanitiesplay so that students can zxpe-'ence educaticaas more-than simply memorization

And recitation?What role must the humanities ssume to draw students into the culture of higherlearning anC -.herein develop those critical literacy skills thatare necessary to personal and professional liberation?

What we need id an agenda for leveling-upinstitutional expectations.. Even the career programfaculty know that theirStudents are doomed to deadend jobs if theycannot read, write, and think critic- ally about their work.

This ie not justa call for higher standards, which infact is usually more a euphemism for excludingthe underprepared and cooling= out those deemed inappropriatCfambitious. My call rather is for an inclusive form of education, centered around liberP.1 studies.for WO ;he "new" students for whomthe two-yeri college is themost available, most realiStic option.

There have of course been recentattempts to restore the human- itities to the two-year college. In some states, the legislatures have tied continued fundingto the imposition of liberalarts requirements. There is the growth of this organizationand the theme of this conference.And there are a number ofnoteworthy efforts at individual colleges arounethe country. Too few to be sure, but important to know about--at Miami-Dade,at the Community College of Philadelphia, at Los Medanos.

-10- Unfortunately, however, there are alsoa number of t ids in the humanities that atfirst appear to be progressive ,:)atup closer extination contribute to more segregationand inequalitI The first of these trends attemptsto enrich the humanities experience for AtudsInts in careerprograms. On many campt.ses, faculties arereluctant to institute requirements, knowingthat many students will avoidthem by taking only career-related coursesand then leave collegefor a job without completing their-degrees. The alternative, thento bringing students to humanitiescourses is to bring the humanitiesto students in occupational programs. At the State Universityof New York, they call this C':e"infusion approw:h." Via this approach, one finds "humanitiesmodules"--two= to three-weelcsegments inserted into vocationalprograms: Spanish for medical -3zistant students, French forrestaurant management students, the "Roleof the Automobi1 71 ?,merican Society"for auto mkchanic students, etc.5 These kint,' -Aodular sectionsoffer the patina of higher learning while obviouslyavoid1ng the ohallenge and rewards of itssubstance. A Aecond reg'lensive approach to the "revival"of the humanities adds to the kind oftracking Within community collegesmentioned earlier. In recent years, many liberal artsfaculties have developed proposals for honors programsas a way to attract and retain higher=abilitystudents. A number of Californiacommunity colleges, for example, have teamed up Withneighboring university centers to launch so-called "redirectionprograms"--honors programs Set in the two=year colleges to attractuniversity applicantswho are thereby redirecZadto the junior college as part of an effortto control enrollmcr. growth in the four-yearinstitutions. These -11- 88 proposals tor honors ptograms usually icludea reallocation of resources away from the breadet student bodytoward these new preferred students==in effect a kind ofredirection of resources and

concern within the junior colleges from thelesS-able to the morw-- able StUdents; Sadly; these proposals usually de netinclude ways t0 diSCOVet and develop the hidden potent:I.al Of the Colleges' traditiOnal student body so thatthey too might benefit from these enriched pre:Ira:Ss; More typically; in fact, one findS.A gtOWing

percentage 0f the traditional student bodyconfined te "tettainal general education" arid retedialprogramsboth largely staffed by the humanities faculty not inVitedto teach in the emerging honorS tiffortE These terminal general educationprograms first appeared in the 193ns antiwere designed for students who wouldnever go on to the highet learningjunior/seniorstatus at fedr=yeat colleget;

Though out Of faVot during themore egalitarian=Mitided 1960s and 70s; they are 'WU in a state of revivalat many community et4liages; catiOnal programs used to serve.as the loveSt tteek

wi the junior college with the liberalarts transfer ttack the

most selective; Today the telt:arse is true with the liberalarts program more and more the plate ft: "hold"students -.aiting for

places to open in the more prestigiouscareer programs. Some would claim that the genral educationprogram id often new a yaw kind of remedial ghetto where coolingout in ite claSeid ftitth takes place-- but thiti time with anew twist as students ate COOled=OUt of their

"unrealistic" vOCational (ratherthan academic) ambitionS into ad ersatz ford tr. the liberal arts

A more progreSeiVe, inClusive a( la for the humanities would take on very different kind:3 of Cenfiguationa. In that spirit; what I propose are multiple forms cs4 humanisticstudy each set in curricu-

lar rtructures that are appropriatein different ways fordifferent kinds of "new" students commonlyserved by the two-year college--

full-time traditional age studentsenrolled in eithercareer or transfer programs; young-adult part-timestudents who return to school to seek degrees and/or enhaace their career chances;older adults who enroll periodically, taking courses for recreationalor more profoundly intrinsic v_asons.

Many tradition-age students begintheir undergraduate studies already rather well cooled-outby previous school experiences.

Often they ha4e participated inremedial programs. Often they have already been deemed "sparrows"rather than "bluebirds" andhave come to see themselves as "destined"for failure or at best narginai

forms of academic and vocativaalachievement. But if we belltre

that human potential isa leat re- Jqualiy distributedamong all peoples, than many ofour spdrs re potentially bluebirds. For these students the humanitiescan play a decisive role in their awakening and development. To play a progressive role,

curricular structures themselveshave to be progressivelyordered-- it is minimilly essential that community colleges committhemselves to offer and run sequantial offeringsthrough at least the inter- mediate level. rhis is an important institutionalsymbol of belief in students' movementacross the semesters--it shifts thefocus from individual courses to coursesof study.

With curricular sequences inplace, through both the contentand methods of their disciplines, humanistscan more consciously make a committment to a kind of student involvementthat encourages personal transformation. I am attracted to Jack Mezirow's notionof

-13- "perspecitv. '.1713t...-60.4"a process that leads studentt tesee

how they usw?,-, t,;,; lh thOl.r own histories andmax, withOUt 7 major effort; b.71 te rellv hietory; Carefully considered forms ct a.ching :an help students becOmecritically aware of the cultu a., and psychologicalassumptions that 'ave patterned their livas. In this way their-perspectivescan be transformed and other possibilitiesfor their lives can manifest themselvas.

Another useful approach to what mightbe called "reconstructive teaching" is Zelda Gamson's elaborationof "liberating education."9

To be liberating, an educationmust be rooted in experience. An education that is grounded instudents' experiences both validates

those Axperiences and enablesstudents to establish linkagesbetween what they already know and whatthey need to-study. For the disciplines to avoid being merely academic and thereby driveales.;

students, they must "reach downinto their (own) sirugglest, end show students how'thesestruggles can illuminate what ttvy experience themselve.:. "9

This approach does not,however, focus primarilyon the self=- it moves quickly beyondthe self to what others inother times and places have experienced and tomodes of analysis and understanding.

A liberating curriculum, carriedout with methodologies designedand committed to students' transformation,"moves back and forth between "10 awareness and application, engagement anddetachmAnt. rt is an education that seeks to heat-uprather than cool=out. It is also an approach, frankly, that heats-upand transforms the faculty. And it is an education ideally suitedto working with traditiorml=age community college students who respondimmediately to its personal =14.= 91 force and need to experience its transformationalpower.

For a second grouR of community college students.young adults wno attend part time and seek either Iegreesor clusters of courses rnUsarily for career-related purpoees, for thesestudents the humanities have, in my view,a different role to play. These students oftun have had some previous collegeexperience; indeed, many so-called "reverse transfer" students alreadyhave undergraduate degrees and enroll in two-year collegesfor a.particular form of specialized education. Most work full time. Many have moved from job to job, seeking more. Some have already come to seasP that their education lacks the breadth theynow see to be important to their careers and to leadingfulfilled lives. To be sure, at this stage in their lives, career interestsare still central, but as they attempt to nesotiatetheir way into management positions, they are discovering thatthose people who aze most mobile. Who move the fastest, have somethingin their academic background that IL; missing in theirowu. They are ripe, therefore. for an experience in the liberal artsthat does at least one of tWo things-=first. einigsr ptovidasa curricular stream that helps them acquire those generic skills that have directprofessional appli= cation or second, provides a curriculumthat enables them to fill in the gaps in their educational background. The first is process 7ich; the oecond rich in content

The fulle.st expression of the former, thegeneric-skills or competencieA approach, has been theattempt to fosts7 writing across vhe currilulum. There is a grat deal that is attracive about the

id., of Vying as much easis tocmpotency ai aoit'Lztni===especiaiiy T;Aen workiri with career-minde-1 adults. But in tte

-1S-

11111-1021MMIME-7.0,,-.5.1=o- approach to a competency-based education, thecompetencies themselves that undergird the curriculum oftenseem too abstract and alienating to students with a oractical orientation. The traditional 14st

include the competencies of "abstract 1:cTicalthinking, "critical analysis," "historical consciousner- "understanding numerical data," "international and aulticulturalexperiences.11 A more atty-tive approach; hopefullyan approach with

equivalent in..._:ty. would emphasize a broader range ofcompeten- cies that arb ntial to a person's being successfulin lift==in careers. as citizene, as members of a family. I would organize tNese in three clusters==intellectualand cognitive skills (logical, critical, analytical thinking;communicatins: verbal, written. non-verbal; information and data acquiSition,manipulation, and retrieval; multi-dimensional thinking;values formation; etc.), interpersonal-and political skills(decision=making; advocacy and persuasion; subordination,management, afid leadership; networkin' "getting-along" skille, etc.),personal and affective-skills

taking and moxie; flexibility andadaptability; the ability to handle ambiguity, uncertainty, andcrisis; human understanding; spontaniety, playfullness. and creativity;self-motivation; self- evaluation, correction, and control;passion and committment, etc.) Assuming my list of the competenciesfor success at least gets uS Started, one then needs to ask whichof these are appropriately taught? And Which of these are the rightfulpreserve o the ilumanities?Most is my answer to both vieetions.

This approach in both credit andnon-credit programs. for both adult students seeking degree and others,serves a progrEsive. reconstructive agenda as well as going beyondthe usual goal of the

93 "basics movement." Th.._ -1st of competencies, laced into liberal

studies courses and programs6 lifts the usuallylimited basics approach from something inStrumental to somethigtransforma-

tional a:a it gets us all thinking e'Jou.. AL:rlal things that make people powerful and points to ways in whichwe can teach them to our students.

For those younger, practical-minded adults who Wisha content- rich curriculum to fill in gaps in theireducational backgrounds. there are alSo challenges to the humanities faculty.When discussing curricular issues herd it is usefulto be reallstic and

acknowledge that theSe Studenta are not necessarilyseeking degrees (quite a few have them alreaA7) andmost will enroll intermittently. The usual curricular response is reallyno response at ail--give students the schedule of what's available inany given semester and let them take anything they want. To be faIr, no matter what ohe might construct, this haphazardpattern may still turn out to be the dominant reality. But there are opportunities to educators to -sr(,vide alternatives.

Humanities programs for intermittentstudants can consist of related groups of courses that stand alone. These clusters do not necessarily have to be connected to degreeprograms. They only need to be connctcted to each other in meaningfulways over a number of semesters--in chronological groupings,around themes, about problems. They can be organized in mote )r less traditional academic configurations, f31 interdisciplinaryarrangements, or hy genre. None of these forms are mutually exclusive. Successful programs can be structured according to more than one organt7ationat principle. For examole, the thcme of "wilture" can be approached

-17- 94 chronologically through a series ofinterdisciplinary courses and seminars.

Adults often prefer a problem-centeredcurriculum in which academic content is framed by issuesthat are vital to their lives. It is uot difficult to shapea series of interdisciplinary humanities courses thatover a year or t.1 would trace the human

endeavor to consider such issues. History, philosophy. literature, psychology, for example, compatabiylend their methods.and discoveries to this kind ofE-ructure.

The problem=centered avproach isalso the most progressiveas the best issues emerge fr.pi theexperiences of the students

themselves. Adults, we I acknowledge, are differentthan

traditional-age studentF becauseof the richness and diversityof their lives. If we caa ITind compellingways to draw upon that experience in currinilar formscarried out in didcussion-rich

classes, these students at comiunitycolleges will discover waysto take more control of their Iivcg.

Malcolm Knowles califs this"andragogy." it is based on the

assumptions that adults are661f-directiug (or at least willbecome so quickly in the proper learningenvironment); that adults become ready to learn when they experiencea need to know or do something: that adults enter an educational activity with a life-centered,task= centered. Or problem-centered orientationto lea-rning; that adults are more inteusicaliy motivated thanyounger students.12 These characteristics of adult studentsmake them ideally suited toan approach to the humanities that seeksto encourage personal transformation.

The thi-rd kind of student one typicallyencounters at community college is lag older EMS, who takescourses for purely personal -16- 95 rea ons--for recreation, to be with people. to find meaning. Few pursue degrees. Many actually have degrees but seek to reexperience

the liberal arts now that they are "old enough"to appreciate them. In a sense they seek a liberal re-education.They seek to mike more sense of the world, to find a framework within whichto understand human histry, to confront the big questionsabout the meaning of life. They are at a stage in their lives when it isimportant to find ways tc integrAt6 ,:heir own personalhistories. In short, they are the kind stud-tn humanists dream about encountering.

But too what we offer them trivializesour mutual aspira- tions. and appropriately the recreationalcourses we offer these adults are mocked by other educators andnot fundeC by state legislatures. If among these students thereare some seeking an integrated experience, we should respond -lithmore than courses in social dancing and knitting. Why not Zetur course sequence in Western Civilization=="The Classiclal World,""The Middle Ages and the Renaissance." "The Makingt0 the Modern Woride" and "Modern Times"?

Some would respond that these kinds ofcourses wnuld neVer get off the groundno one would enrolleveri,hough we would love tO teach them. That response presupposcs a passive institutional role. If there ate adults whc 'vated as I have suggested then we need to develop the apvk programs and make them known to these pettple.

Up to this point, Moat inStitutional marketing AS ):4Iten general-- the institution itself is what we market. Only the goat sophistica- ted colleges "segment" their potential studentmarkets and then market directly to each of them. What Ism suggesting has ita

96 bottom-line side (more enrollments);but it also takes into

consideration that the humanities, intheir various forms,are the most poWerful, most important kindof higher learning--and thus marketable. They are vital to people at allstages in their lives. They can help people transform theirlives as they are the most practical and most transportingform of learning. That's what we should communicate. That's what we must "sell" to people.

I'm frankly tired of hearing allthe moaning and 'groaning about the decline of the humanitiesand feeling the sense of powerlessness so many humanists express in the faceof the "triumph" of career education.

Let's get off our you-know-whatsand assert what we know--only the humanities can change people'slives. References

1. In the following descriptionof the contemporary community college. I am indebted to RichardC. Richardson. Jr. and Associates. Literacy in the Open AccessCollege (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 1983). Pp. 148 ff.

2. See for example. Jerome Karabel."Community Colleges and Social Stratification." Da-rva-rd-Educational Review. 42(1972): 521-561 and L. Steven Zwerling,_Second Best: The Crisis-of the Community College (NewYork: McGraw Hill. 1976). 3. For example. see Fred L. Pincus."Vocational Education: More False Promises" inL.S._Zwerling. ed.. The CommunityColleco and Its Critics (San Francisco: Jossey=liass_._ 1986): 41-52 and W.W. Wilmes. Vocational Education and Social Mobility (LosAngeles: UCLA Graduate School of Education,1980). 4. "The 'Cooling-Out' Function inHigher Education." American Journal of-Soctoloay. 65(1960): 569-76.

5 See, for example. HowardLondon. The CuLtlnre ofa Community College (New York: Praeger. 1978) and R.C. Richardson,Jr. and Associates. Litaracy,op. cit.

6. The Humanities and Sciences inTwo-Year Colleges. (Los Angeles: ERIC Clearinghouse for JuniorColleges. 1980), pp. 3=4. 7. "Perspective Transformation." 100-110. Adult Education, 28 (1978):

8. Liberating Education (San Francisco: Jossoy-Bass, 1984). 9. G.A. Woditsch, "DevelopingGeneric Skills: A Model for Competency-Based Education." CUE Project Occasional Paper Series No. 3 (Bowling Green: Bowling Green State University.1977), p. 25. 10. Gamson, Ube-rating Education,op. cit.

11. Integrity-in-the College Curriculum.(Washington. D.C.: American Association ofColleges. February, 198E).

12. Andragoav in Action (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 1984). SMTE UNIVERSITY OF NEWYORK

REPORT of the CHANCELLOR'S TASKFORCE on COMMUNITY COLLEGES

JULY, 1986

99 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In many refq*cta, this Mak Force Report is as remark- Looking to the future, the Task Force identified the able for what it does not say as t is for the significant potential need of some of the community colleges, espe- recommendations thatare rnadethroughout Like the cially some of the smaller ones with relatively mcidedt fls= preiminarY finding in &niter LaValle's studyon the SUNY cal and population bases, to seek out other sponsorship Community Colleges, the findings of the various Task options if they are to continue to survive as vital institu- Force Cortunittees did not identify an overwhelntng irter tions in their conununities. The tWo major recommen- est in changing the staW-wide Structure within which dations in this area were to extend to other community SUNY community colleges operate In other areas of recent colleges the option of the regional college or "Corning interest the Task Force found no majoraystem-wide dis- Community Colle" sponsorship mcidel and alsopmvide satisfaction with the length of terms of trustees; nor did the option to petition to become a state funded/state oper- it receive any strong indication from many campuse7 ated community college under the direct supervision and regarding the need to change the present chargeback sys- control of SUNY. tem. There was no major thruSt to address a variety of In Chaptar II, which reviews the relationships among other existing local community college issues that may State University, the slate operated colleges and the com- have been of more_concem to a small number of col- munity colleges, the Task Force identifies some excel- leges than to the SUNY community college system as a lent, positive activities related to transfer articulation, whole. along with some significant areas of concern, and makes On the other hand, while some of the recommenda- appropriate recommendations to addreas these areas. tions in the areas of funding and governance were not Much has already been done to strengthen transfer artic- unanticipated, a number of other recommendations relat- tdation between SUUY's two-and four-year colleges. As ing to the need for stronger SUNY Central staff support a matter of fact, the Task Yorce was pleased to find that, for conununity colleges as wel as the need for a stronger, except in some isolated cases related to highly compet- more forrpal relationship betWeen SUNY and the com- itive programs, the &operation between the two-year col- munity colleges were somewhat stronger than originally leges and fouryear colleges was stronger than anticipated. anticipated. Certainly the quest for a clearer underatand- The wesence of cooperative activities would tend to ing of the role and responsibility of the Office of Commu- strengthen the perception thatlransfer articulation within nity Colleges in relationship to the individual campuses SUNY is generally succesSfuL However there were a num- and within SUNY was a persistent question that was not ber of areas identified that should be clarified in order anticipated at the start of this study. There was also a to strengthen the present systent There needs to be a repetitious and critical theme that suggested that under better understanding of obligations of receiving institu- the present system there was dearly no statewide cen- tions toWard communitTcofte graduates holding an A.A. tral point of accountability for the SUNY community or A.S. degree as distinct from non-gradue.e transfer stu- colleges. dents ancLA.A.S. and A.O.S. graduates. The 1980 SUNY In Chapter I, which is focused on the area of gover- Board of nuatees Policy related to the transfer of stu- nance, the tWo most critical areas identified are related dents needs to be reviewed and revised. to the power and authority of local boards and different A major theme inChapter El also appears in Chapter forms of externalgovernance that local boards and spon- the need for SUNY Central to provide significantly sors might stek The Task Force recommended that appro- more resources, coordination and informatiortin a num- priate education laws be changed to authorize the boards ber ofareas. While someother states have had state- of trnstees to become the legal employer of all college per- wide follow-up studies of community college graduates sonnel, with all of the rightS and responsibilities includ- for years, SUNY has not provided leadership in doing irg the responsibility for collective bargainingthaigo along this nor has it worked on developing a system of regular, with this designation ;" addition, the Task Force recom- systematic feedback to community colleges on the prog- mended that there be one method of sponsor funding von- ress, success or failure of community college graduams sor apKoval of a lump sum for its share of the budget at SUNY upper division colleges-This lack of central- These two conditions would provide local boards with the ized in --wmation and accountability for community col- autonomy, authority and power they need to minimize lege graduates is unacceptable and the need for such potential externalpolitical involvement and interference an information system is essential and longoverdue. Chap- in the day-to-day operation of the'colleges and to carry ters II and III of the Report provide Spedfic recommen- out their overall responsibilities as community college trus- dations on these and related areas. tees. Trustees, on the other hand, must actively partici- Chapter IR identifies the need to establish a mecha- pate and regularly attend Board meetings, and those unable nism outside the regular funding formula that would allow or unwilling to do so should be replaced. the community colleges to compete for funds to address

Io o their highest priority needs, many of which cannot be of the governance structure in terms of board of trustees addressed in the regular budget The Task Force recom- and sponsor authority and control. The Task Force also mends the establishment of a $5,000,000 annual Pro= suggested that there may be a need to make provisions gram and Services Quality Improvement Fund (PSQIF) for some of the community colleses to seek an emended to supportouality improvements to community college regional base for support or to petition for a state take- prosrams. The funds would be dittLibuted on a competi- over of the colleges. However, there was little interest tive basis. The strength of this proposal is that it allows eressed in changinsthepresent community college the colleges to identify and compete for funds in order to organizational structure within the SUNY system. Thera meet their highest priority needs. was a clearly expressed need for more services from SUNY Chapter III of the Report emphasizes the need for SUNY ranging from coordinating a regular statewide graduate to establish accessible graduate programs for commu- follow-up study to providing fiscal support to improve nity college faculty and staff The 'Disk Force recommends the quality of programs on_community college campuses. the establishment of a community college retearch cen- The recommendations of the Task Force, if implemented, ter and the creation of an endowed chair for distinguished should help alleviate the perception that, excluding the community college faculty_whichsupplements the rec- budget and curriculum approval, there is no statewide ommendation in Chapter II for SUNY to become more active central point of accountability for the SUNY community in promoting a faculty exchange program among SUNTs college system. two-and four-year colleges. _ The implications for SUNY are clear. There is a need Thepropotal on funding, outlined in Chapter IV of this for SUNY to rethink its responsibilities and relationships Report provides a clear direction for SUN? and the com- to the thirty SUNY community colleges. Doe§ SUNY with munity colleges to focus upon next year. It suggests a to continue its role as a "coordinating" agency or should change in the funding formula that makes provisions for it become more active ilta variety of areas? CertainlyZUNY colleges to receive either 40% of their approved operat- cannot addrets many of the recommendations in this ing budgetor the formula amount whichever is greater. Report without taking a more proactive role in all of the The Tatk Force recognized_the potential need for a cap areas addressed If thefunding formula is to be changet on the combined amount of base and supplemental aid it a essential for the Chancellor and hit staff to be in the to accompany this proposed funding option, but while a forefront of these changes. The same is true for the recom- state aid funding cap of 50% of the operating budget was mended changes in the governance tinctures of the college discussed, it was recommended that a more detailed impact For the recommended changes in delivering and coordi- study be completed before a specific cap to the formula nating a wide variety of services to the community col- could be recommended. leges, SUNY will need to reallocate present resources. Chapter IV also highlilhts the ffict that even as thit Thit Task Force hat clearly identified specific prob- study was being conducted some legislators in both the lems and concerns that create bipth present and poten- Senate and the Assembly were working on reviews and tial barriers to SUNY community college; in their pursuit proposals focused on community college funding. of excellence and the delivery of quality service. A num- In conclusion, this Task Force found evidence of many ber of these concerns have beri identified in prior reports. positive relationshipsbetween SUNY and the thirty SUNY if the recommendations of this Task Force are to be given community collers. It identified an urgent need to change serious consideration and successfully adopted, SUNY lead- the state aid funding formula and several key portions &Ship is vital. CONTENTS

Executive Summary Task Rift* MeMberti Organizational Chart i Aelatowledgments *1

httroductIon *tit chaptek aovernance Chapter II Strengthenhig Craununity Collegeand SUM State-Operated College Ties and Welationihips

Chapter III Academie and eiteral ProgrammaticIssues 21 Chapter Fir Funding 26 Appendix A Appettalic 33 35 Appendix C 36 Bibliography

102

Iv STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK CHANCELLOR'S TASK FORCE ON COMMUNITY COLLEGES

Stuart Steinen 'nsk Force Chairman Joweph Hnnkln, Chairman, Committee A -Funding _Sean Fanel114 Chairman, Committee B -Governance _ Donald Donato, Chairman, Committee C -Strengthening Community College and SUNY State-Operated College Tiesand Relationships Donald Beattie, Chairman Committee D -Academic and General Programmatic Issues

COMMITTEE MEMBERS

Joseph Burke, Committee C Thomas M. Law, Committee D Anne M. Bushnelli Committee D Georgia MacNeil, Committee B Linda Chapple, Committee B David Mathis, Committee C_ Edwin Crawford, Committee A Wayne O'Sullivan, Committee D Martha J. Downey, Committee C Thaxideus Raushi, Committee C Robert Gray, Committee A Harry Spindle Committee A John L Haluch, Committee C Louis Sto Ilan Committee B Larene HoelcleCommittee D garbara K. Towns-end, Committee B Christopher Horan, Committee A James J. Warrer4 Committee B Vincent Klein, Committee A

RESOURCE S'TAFF

Jane Altos, Committee C Kenneth Ball, Committee D _ George Anker, Committee A Marjorie W. Lavin, Committee C Phyllis trader-Sorel, Committees B,C Sandra Mardon, Commitmes B,D William Barczak, Committee A Richard Rohstedt, Committee B Charles Burns, Committees C,D David Van Nortwick, Committees A,D Craig Con ly, Committee A

103 STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK CHANCELLOR'S TASK FORCE ON COMMUNITYCOLLEGES

Stuart Stelner._CheitMen President. Genesee Community Called, I

Q2MMIIISIA Comm!ttsf on Funding Comml-ttoe ceMMItteff D on Gdvernance on Strengthening__ _ on Academic and Community College arid Generml_PrOgrediaitIc SIAM' State-Operated College Tie, end.Relationships

Joseph Nankin. Chairmen President. Westchester Saiah-fedelli.-Chalrmsn Donald Donato, Chairmen Donald_Bedittli_. Chairmen Prel_donti_mettie0 Prosidant. Niagara CoMMunity Wipe Community College PreiLlAbent._OrdOMe CodAty Community Community College COilege Marry Spindler._Senior. Georgie M1CM4II. Chairmen Vice Chancellor Thaddeus Reushi _Laren* Mdalcie. Dean TompkIns-COFtlind CdatkinIty -Counselor. Schenectady College Board of Trustees of Humen_ReboUrces and COunty Community College Plannino. Genesee Community College Robert Gray. Attorney LOUIS Stdilar. Professor Troy. New York Martha J,DOwneS0 APO* W-Oushnell Feshion_institute Secretary of Technology Trusti_Uleter_CountY of this University Community College Vincent Klel/Y. vice_ Sarbera Townsend David Mathis;_CheirMen _Wayne O'Sullivan Chairmen. Cayuga Count), 'Aselstent Professor Mohawk VerLy Oommunitif Community College _of_MIgher EdOtetidii _Preeldent._Faculty Obard of TTTTT imps College board of Trustees COunci_l_of_COmmUnitY University of Buffalo Colleges EdWin_LCrAL JANOS Warren JoM_Maluch._ProfeSS00 Executive Olr.-cor Ousimss Executive -Themes M. Law mew york State Community College of _ACting Deputy-to the Association of Counties the Finger Lakes Chancellor_For_COOMOdlitY Colleges _Christelper_NOren Linda Chapple Student. Schenectedy_Cognty Jossoh Surke.__Acting Vice President Provost Community College Of_Community Ctilleges Student Aseembly

RESOURCE STAFF Williem-Sarczak Craig Conly_ Jimmy-Attie_ _Sandra MardOn Richard Ponstedt (Committee A) (Committee A) (Ccemalttee C) Fialjorie Lavin (Comisitties ND) (Committee B) (Commit:Ste C) George Anker_ Phyllis Bidet-BOW David Van Mortwick Charles Burns (Committee A) (Committee, S/C) Kennilith_0. Mall (Committees A/0) (Committees C/D) "Committee Di ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Manypeople have invested large blocks of thne in order dent of the Faculty Council of Community Colleges;_for to take full advantage of Chancellor Wharton'sinvitation serving with meand the Committee Chainnen as a Task to identify the major issues and concerns of SUNY Com- Force Steering Committee. munity Collef;es today and tb make appropriate recom- The secretarial staff in the Community College Office mendations to address these issues. has provided superbsupportin handling a constant flow The Task Force members and Resource Personnel lis- of requests from TaSk Force Committees and the Steering ted in the Report are not only outstandir.g_profession- Committee and an-anging regular Task Force meetings; alt and business peoe, but have been extremely active Thanks are also extended to Helen Monachino and Dol- participants and contributors to the Report For exam- _ ores Mistretta in my office for taking on one morejob in ple, all but two members attended the second meeting of a long line of eXtta tasks. The Task Force is also indebted the entire TaSk Force, and one of them was in the hospitaL to Charles Schulze of Westchester Community Collegefor However, special thanks and recognition for the suc- the special assistanm he provided to the Task Force Funding cessful completion of the Report must be focused on four Committee and to Dr Larene Hoelcle of Genesee Com- individuala who, at my request, Willingly and enthusias- munity College for her help in coordinating this Report tically took on the task of chairing the four major com- Aruilast but far from least; are a very special thanks to mittees of the Task Force: Dr. Joseph Hankin, President Dr Freda Martens; who was the hardest working"volun- of WestChester Community College; Dr Sean Fanelli, Pres: teer" any committee could have and; aside from attend- ident of Nassau Community College; Dr Donald Donato; ing all sessions, made a major contribution to our study President of Niagara County_Comminity College; and Dr. by highlighting and summarizing the major findings of Donald Beattie, PreSident of Broome Community College. ten prior reports that have some focus on community All did exceptionaliobs of providing the quality leader- colleges; ship necessary to finish the investigation and presenta- It_wastruly a pleasure to havehad the opportunity tO tion of this Report on schedule in approximately six work with such an outstanding group of individuals on znonths. this Task Force Team; In addition my appreciation is extended to Georgia MacNeit Chairnian_of the Tompkins-Cortland Community College Bitiard Of Trustees and President of the Association of Stuart Steiner Chairman Boards of Trustees of Community Colleges of the State Chancellor's _Task Force on University of New York, and Wayne O'Sullivan, Presi- Community Colleges

105 tit INTRODUCTION

On August 28, 1985 a "planning committee," consiat- _Given the size, nature and broad Mg of the Acting Mptityto theChancellor for Commu- interests of the Task nity Colleges; the President Of Force, it was detemlined that it couldbe effectively shire- the ASSociation_of Boards tured into cbmrcittees Four committees of TrtiStees of Community Colleges,the Presidentof the were established, Faculty Council of CommunityColleges each chaired by an experiencedcommunity college pres: and the Presi-_ Went. Joseph Rankin, President of dentofthe Association Of Pretideitsof Public Commu- Weatchester Commu- nity Colleges met in Albany at the4equest nity College, was named Chairman ofCommittee A on of Chancellor Funding; Sean Fanelli; Presidentof Nassau Community Wharton. Chanceller Wharton askedthe CommuniV Col- College; was named Chairman Of lege office to cciordiriatea tommittee to review and make CommitteeB on Gov- ernance; Donald Donato; President ofNiagara Ceunty Com- aOpropriate recommendations htreStierise to the recom- munity C011ege, WAS named Chairnian mendations on the SUNY communitycolleges made in of Committee C The Chatteve -and _the Choice-, the on Strengthening Community College andSUNY State- Report of the hide- Operated College_Ties and RelationshipS; pendentCommission on the Futiire ofthe State Brti- and lionald Beat- versn Whilecommunity college tie, President of Broome CommunityCollege, was named issues were not the major Chairman of Committee D On Aca.demic focus of the ComthiStion_study,its review of the SUNY and General Pro- community colleges resulted iii SeVeral grammatic Issues. general, but signifi- SubSeqiiently there were two additional cant., recommeidations with potentiallybroad implications. full Teak Force Chancellor Wharton recognized meetings, and oVer a. dozen anda half Committee and that there waS a geat Steering Committee meetings. A number interest and desire amongtheCommunity college cam- of surveyswere puses to take a serious look at the &inducted and public hearings heldby the Various Corn- keyrecommendations, mittets to help_gerierate input froma and his direetiona to the planningcommittee_were to broad range of people. review carefully the repot and The most difficult job that the TaSkForce faced was to indicate to him whether keep facused on major statewide they wanted to daan extensive retrietv of the recom- issuet and Concerns, mendations as well_ss to consider since at the ontset various groupsand individuals _pep._ other currentcommu- ceived the Task Force to be a Mechanism nity college issues. The_ planningcommittee responded to address par- in the affirmative and the ticular concerns of interestto only brie or two campuses, cortiMittee Members unanim- or to addr.§.4 consideratons that ously recommended that theChancellor appoint a com- were notjudged te be mittee to study net only the broadly bascd, state-wide iSSiteS. Inaddition; some people recommendations of the felt that the Task Force report Independent CorrunissionbtitaltoOtherissues and con- weilld be a good media- Cerns of the SUN? community colleges rusm restate the importance of cornmunityc011eges that were deemed as well w te reemphatiZe the typesnf appropriate. In_NoVerriber theChancellor appointed the support the col- members of the Task FOrt6 -Mid the legesneed to provide to a variety ciftheir constituen- SUNY resource staff cies. In the end the Task Force adhered Membea. The Chancellor named StuartSteiner; the Presi- to the Strong dent of Genesee_Community direction that it foetit it§ recommendationson state- College; who was serving a§ wide issues which result from the Acting Deputy to theChatitellorfor Community Col- barrieit that could be over- leges, as the Chairman of the come in a clearly definablemanner. Task Force. The_first meet- It is within thiS framework that ing of the entire_Task Forcemembership was held on this Report is written. December 20; 1985.

106 CHAPTER I GOVERNANCE

OVERVIEW assurned.substantial authority and responsibility over day- toAay college operations. The extent to which a college achieves a degree of excel- The second major issue concerned the relationship lence in accomplishing its mission and maintaining its between the community colleges and the State Univer- academic integrity is due, in large measure, to the gover- sity. There is a need for a better definition of this rela- nance of the institution. tionship. Colleges are not in agreement however; about The complexiW of the governance process requires the the ditection this relationship should take. establishment of effective relationships between the col- A third issue centered on the role and responsibilities lege and the sponsor, and between the college and the of trustees. In some colleges the boards of trustees mis- State UniversiM as well as a better definition of therole understand their role. Beyond their rightful responsibil= and responsibilities of community college trusteeS. Within ity in making policy, some boards atter...t to implement a college the internal governance process must also fos- it as well. The roles of the president, the administration ter relationships that promote the accomplishment of the and the acuity in the campus governance process are college's mission. While many aspects of the authority compromised. The number of trustees and their method and responsibility for each garticipant in governance are ofappointment is also a matter of concern to some defined in law, they are not tmiformly interpreted by the colleges. sponsors of community colleges. A fourth issue involves the internal governance pro- The statutes organizing_comntunity colleges created cesses on campuses. The accomplishment of a college's decentralized colleges within a centralized university mission is tied to effective internal governance. The par- While most community colleges have a single county as ticipants in these processes must understand their roles a sponsor, several have tWo cdunties as sponsors, one and responsibilities. has a city as a sponsor and one college has a community college region with three counties participating A. Issue 1 _ Not all counties support their community college in the Relationship Between College and Sponsor same way or to the same extent The locus of authoriV for community college budget approval can vary from Sponsors sometimes exercise more control over com- county to county depending upon the form of local gov- munity college policy and operations than is proper. The ernment In addition the sponsor may elect one of three exercise of this control diminishes the college's auton- modes for the fiscal operation of the college These modes omy which is essential to the maintenance of the aca- are known as Plane A, B and C. The greatestfiscal auton- demic integrity of the institution. omy exists under Plan C and the leatt under Plan A. Plan C permits lump sum appropriations, but this plan is B. Background implemented with varying degrees of flexibility from All of the studies cited above contain references to county to county Plan A colleges have line item budget some aspect of the relationship between college and spon- approval and detailed pre-audit of individual expenses. sor. Every report contains citations about the intrusion All of these factors contribute to the confused and con- of sponsors intu the operation of colleges. The report of flictirts application and definition of authority and respon- the Independent Conunission on the Future of the State sibility in governance. University, The Challenge and the Choice, contained the since the start of the community college system in New most direct reference. York State in 1948, matters ofgovernance have been of concern. No less than ten studies, as noted in the sec- "A significant number of community colleges have tion on Funding have examined community college gov- encouritered at least occasional disagreements ainong ernance issues, and each resultant report contained their administrations,governing boards, and local recommendations concerninig improvement of the gov- sponsors r*Larding spheres of authoft. In visits to ernance of community colleges. various campuses, the Commission found appre- hension regarding potential interference by local The Governance Committee identified several major boards and county government in inappropriate issues to study in detail. The first mAjor issue that areas. There were periodic complaints over politi- emerged concerned the relationship hetween colleges and cal pressures in such matters as purchasing and sponsors. In a number of colleges the sponsor has hiring (especially of nonacademic personnel)."

107 Both the 1969 Nelson Report and the 1977 Wessel Finilings Report give further examples of past concerns. The former report "deplored" the dominant role of the sponsor The committee found a need to . explore new meth- while the latter recommended that the Sponsor's role ods for providing the colleges with more independente should be limited to financial appropriation and end-of- the sponsor. Examination otthe fiscal modes year audit of expenditures. of operation of a community college (Pans A, B, and C) revealed the need for additional options that Wtitild glib* C. Statement of the Present Problem greater independence_from the sponsor in the operation of the collW while Maintaining appropriatesponsor over- The conditions cited above tentinue to exist inmany sight The committee identified a plan tited Sticeettftilly of the community colleges in SUNY Survey responses trent by some colleges and sponsors whereby the sponsor the community college trustees, presidents, faculty arid approves a lump sum bUdget and reserves the right to students included frequent references to "problems" with do an end-of-year audit GollegeS OPerating under this_ sponsor interference; systemexpressed a high degree of satisfaction. This plan Sponsors frequently treat commtutity colleges as another generally grants authority to college trustees to trans- county departMent Subject in all respects to county pol- fer money from_ category4- .460 and to expend appro- icy arid rules of procedure; This can denteall themimion priated funds_without detailed pre-audit of the college and relegate the college to theatcom- There are also community colleges which, fora variety plishment of Only Short-term, immediate goal& of reasons, have other prObleitia Which cannot be ade- Sponsors exercise their greatest influente Overa col- quately addressed by a change of the fical incide Of oper- lege's ability _to accomplish im mission through their fis- ation. For these_colleges a more basic structural change cal suppert. Solite Stionsors maintain the lowest possible may 1* requirediaiith ea a regional sponsorship or trans- level of support short of cloaingAtt inttitution. Somespon- fer of control and fiscal responsibility te the State UnE sors determine expenditure of funds by approving line Versity._ Regionalism has been hnplemented successNlly item appropriations. Some sponsors exercisea pre-audit tit_Corning_Community Calk* while state control ofcom- review of expenditureS after budget appropriation munity colleges is an increasingly COMMon planacross approvaL the_country. Some, college presidents report incidents of local legis- There was a strong feeling expressed by those inter- lators attempting te inflUente the selection of candi- viewed that the right hi hire and fire all PerSonnel should_ dates for college positions by mandating that a Spottier reside with the local boards of trustees. Thit right WoAild referred person_be hired; Sponsors sometimes interfere include the ability to hire separate legal counsel to defend inappropriately in labor negotiations and arbitrations; For the interests of the ccillege in courts of law. In additionit example, a sponsor may, without COnstildrig with the _col- was felt that the college, rather than the Sponaor, Shotild lege, make a decision that impacts on the Mance ofgov= negotiate contracts with campus labor unionsrepresent- erning authority or on other day-to-day internal college ing only campus personnel. operational matters. Authority to retain separate college legal counsel _hat F. Recommended Action not been clarified under current law. Onsomecampuses the County Attorney represents the collegein allmat-_ It is recommended that the State University provide ters concerning labor negotiations and in all other legal leadershipin seeking the following amendmentt to the matters except where a conflict of interest between the New York State Education Law, Article 126: college and county may exist a. D. Methodology to require for county sponsored community colleges, a singe fiscal mOde of operation which givescom- The committee stidied. previous reports dealing with plete fiscal auumomy to the college While retaining SUNY community colleges. National studies andreports appropriate accountability for local sponsors; were researched as well. A survey wns sent to 210 individuals in the following categorits: chairpersons of boards b. of trustees, presidents of community colleges, student to provide the option for ajeittt getitioti to SUNY, by truateeS, faculty leaders, county executivesor managers, a localsponsor and a loci' board of trustees, te Min= county legislatorS and business/community leaders. The quish local contrOl and local support ofa community response to the survey was 40%. ReSpontes were care- college to the state UniverSity Of New York and, in fully evaluated and rerommendations in thesurvey return, permit colleges to become fully funded State thoughtfully conSidered. Persons responding to thesur- operations; vey were asked if they WiShed to addresa the Gover- c; nrnce Committee. Twelve persons from associations to permit all sponsors the option of forming a regional representing presidents, trustees, faculty and students community college following the Coming Commu were intervieWed by the committee. nity College model;

21n d. views with presidents, trustees, present and former to make the boards of trustees in all communitycol- members of SUNY central staff and others to determine leges the legal employer of ail college personnel and what, if any, problems exist and the remedies for these giVe them all the Appropriate rights and authority of problems. an employer, including the right and resmonsibilitY to negotiate and administer all labor contracts and E. FindingS alLv the boards of trustees to hire legal counsel to represent the colleges' interestS in all legal matters. Some colleges feel that the office should play a greater academic leadership role in the coordination of college A. Issue 2The Relationship Between Colleges programs and curricula while others take the opposite and the State UniverSity view, ativomting complete local autonomy in academic matters. The State University maintains an office for the coor- While the process of academic program approval is not dination and supervision of community colleges. The roles central to this office, greater centralization of reSponSi= of the Deputy to the Chancellor for Community Col- bilities has been suggested while respecting local aca- leges and the Deputy to the Chancellor's staff are not demic autonomy. - clearly understood on somecampuses. In addition the Relevant information and statistical data produced by relationship between that office and community colleges this office, while increasing in number, are still consid- is even less well understood. Some groups on campuses ered inadequate by some campuses to meet the needs of are_not even aware of the existence of this offic% let alone individual colleges. its ftmction. In a survey conducted among SUNY community col= lege presidents, deans, faculty, trustees and county ofil- B. Backgeound cialka concern was raiSed among a number of respondents that the Office of Community Colleges iS not at fidd oriert; From time to time community college presidents have ted as it shouldbe. However, it should be noted that an examined the role of the office of Deputy to the Chancel- equal number of the respondents took the opposing view lor for Community Colleges. During discussions conflict- that greater campus interaction is not necessary It Should in4 views of this office'S reSponsibilities are given by also be noted that many of the campus contacts by the presidenta Tnistecs, administrators, faculty and students Office of Community College's stag other than the Dep- frequently do not clearly understand the responsibilities uty to the Chancellor for Community Colleges, are mid- of thit office. On some campuses the office becomes dle management personnel who were not part of the group important or useful only when a carnpusproblem or cri- contacted to complete the survey sis arises and at budget time. Some currently see the office in a very PoSitive light while others question its effec- E Recommended Action tiveness. The westion of effectiveness, however, has always been difficult to answer since there is little agree- It is recommended that the State_Umversity of New ment about the relationship of thisoffice to colleges, York betWr define the role of the office cf Mputy to the boards of trustees and presidents. There haS been little Chancellor for Community Colleges, both in terms of how written on this topic in any of the ten reports previously it functions within SUNY and also in relationship to the cited. Much of the impetus for examination of this topic thirty community college campuses; and that the role arises from discussions at meetings of community col- be expanded to include greater leulership, advocacy and lege presidents and trustees. technical service responsibilities. Once clarinet this daf- inition should be communicated to the central adminis- C. Statement of the Present Problem tration of SUNY and to all campus constituencieS. Within theState University's central administration, the _There is a neetto better define the role of the office role of the Office of Community Colleges in the coordi- of 1".*puty to the Chancellor for Community Colleges. The nation of academic programs ought to be revieWed With majority of communitycollege pretidents haveexpres- respect to the office ofthe Vice Chancellor for Academic sed the need for this office to play a greater advocacy role Programs, Policy and Planning. on bAtalf of community colleges in SUNY central admin- The Office of Community Colleges Should be encour- istration. Many presidents and members of boardi of trus- aged to continue and, to the extent necemary, increase tees look to this office as a facilitator in resolving campus statistical data gathering and analysis and provide other problems. pertinent information on a vstem-Wide bags. These data should then be shared with campus constituencies. D. Methodology A. Issue 3Role and Resp-onsibilitles Of Trusteed The committee researched the reports cited above to determine the validity of concerns expressed by individ- The role and responsibilities of community college_trus- ual presidents. The committee relied heavily upon inter= tees are defined in the Education Law and in the Code

3 109 of Standardsand Procedures for the Administration and dentialt. In fact, the report made it explicit that the Opetation of Community Colleges. Qmununity collegetrus- deferral stemmed not from any instructionalor tees have responsibility for determining policy objec- related defIciencieS, but solely from the perceived tives for the local college consistent with the oversight disregard of due process in governance that the responsibilities of the State University of New York Board =raiding association considers integral to instit- of nustees and local sponsors. These policWsare then utional integrity. The campus has now takenappro- most effectively implemented by the campus adminit= priate remedial steps and I am optimistic that all trators. Excessive involvement of the trustees in the day- Will be ardl. But the problem may, in varying degree, have its counterpart elsewhereso we would be to-day administration of the college haa the potentialof wite to examine the aim...." compromising the appropriate roles of the president, the administration, the faculty and students in thecampus governance process. Factors which impact the working composition ofthe board or the independence of/he board in academicded- SUNY Chancellor Clifton & Whartott Jr., explicated the sionmaking can negatively affect the crAlegeS abilityto issues involved in a recent speech to the Annual Con- fUlfill its educational mission. ference of the Asap-dation of Boards ofThistees of Com- munity Colleges of SUNY meeting in Monticello, New York, Septemher 21, 1985, as follows: B. Background "...What concretely, are the problem areas? In hiring and Perionnel, pressures may bebrought to bear 1. The Statutory Framework on boards or on administrations in favor of a avored The February, 1948 Reliort qf the ThmporaryCommis- candidate or against one less acceptable to the sion on the Need for a StaW University recommended incumbent party orgardzadon. In purchasing andcon- the establishment of publicly supportedcommunity col- tracts, countrgovernments which provide a por leges upon the initiative of localgovernment authori- don of support may expect local campuses ua adhere ties within the framework of aState University to time-honored traditioni of expenditure in return-. system ing_the money to the communitY. In allcasco, conflicts arise beatuae political mechanisms for choosing "The community colleges should be established by local employees,vendors, or contractors may have yiel- initiative within a generalaystem that would thenrep- ded different results from mechanisms andproce- resent a real "community" venture and insure sound dures recommended or mandated by the state, by interest and responsibility in their.establishmentani collective bargaining agents, or by scholarly and operation" (Report p. 29) professional organizations such as Middle States and the other accrediting agencies. The Committion concluded thatan important element Regrettably, there are cases where the truStees of the "community venture" WaS administration became the instrument for such improper by a local intrusions." board of trustees: The Chancellor went on to note that the conflictsgen- "The administration of community collegesand of erated by suchpolitical intrusions ilit0 the operation of other higher educational institutions receivingstate community colleges often have regrettable and long- aid (as contrasted with institutions directlyoper- lasting outcomes. ated by the State) should be the responsibilityof local boards of trustees, the State Universi4, Boardof Thitteet being charged only with the supervision _"Such conflicts can even be healthy,up to &point. of general programs...Each communi4, colleieShould But toO often the disputes go beyond any point of be governed by a hoard of nine trusteesappointed creativedisagreement They become heated, then for terms of nine years in annual rotation...Each hostile. Thw make a bad impression on state policy- community college hoard, understanding theneeds makers and the public at large, including akunni and of local students, the cultural needs ofthe cam; potential students. Theundercut working rela- munity, and its employment opportunitiescan more tionships among those responsible for the institu- Wiaely determine the policies governing thecur- tion, and they leave legacies of retentment and riculum (subject to approval of the State University suspicion. Board of Trustees)"...(Report "If widespread and continuing, governance conflicts pp. 31-32) can even threaten the academic viability of the campus, exposing it to threats thr more serious than any The recommendations of the Commissionwere sub- original point of diSpute. For instance, we havenow stantially enacted as Chapter 696 of the Lawsof 1948. within the State University one community college A new Article 126 was added to the EducationLaw, whose accreditation has been deferredon account including section 8306, "administration ofcommunity of what the review team perceived asan ongoing pat- colleges-boardS of trustees," providing the following: tern.of political intervention in personna decisions. I have to Stress that the campus in question isone a. of SUNY's most vigorous, with exceptional enroll- a nine member board of trustees appointed forterms ment strength and outstanding programmatic cre- of nine years;

4 1.10 b. 1953 (Laws of 1953, chapter 272) This amendment five members to be appointed by the sponsor'slegis- re4uired the trustees to prepare a college budget lative body or boards, and four from amongpertons for "submission to and approval by the local reSiding in the sponsoring community, by thegovernor sponsor." c. 1959 (Laws of 1959, chapter 659) This amendmentadded the board to select its own chair from its membership; a new suhdivision to section 6306 authorizing the d. Board of 'Trustees ro enter into contracts "subject the trustees to receive no compensation forservices, to the approval of the local sponsor." but to be reimbursed for expenset; 1960 (Laws of 1960, chapter 416) The terms ofcommu- e. nity college trustees were regularized. All terms the board to appointthe college president subjectto were to be deemed terminated on the thirtieth day approval of the State Univertity Trustees, "and it shall of June of the calendar year within which such appoint or delegate to thepresident the appointment terms expire. of other members of the staff;" 1962 (Laws of 1962, chapter 876) This statuteclarified that title to personal property of the college itto the beard to adopt curricula, tubject to approvalof be held by the college board of trustees, and title State University 'Trustees; to roil property "shall vest in and be held by the_ local sponsor in trust for the uses and purpete of the community college." the board to prepare a budget for submissionto sponsor and State University Truttees; 1965 (Laws of 1965, chapter 723) Thit amendment authorized community college boards of truttees it to determine positions in the professional service the hoard may acquire real and personalproperty and of community colleget (With the approval of the have custody and control of lands, buildings,and Chancellor of State University). equipment; and 1972 (LawS of 1972, chapter 680) Thisamendment 1. authorized community college hoar& of trustees the board may discharge such other dutiesas are nec- to participate in cooperative educational programs essary for the effective operation of the college, and with other educational institutions. as may be provided by law or the State Univertity Irtistees. 1975 (Laws of 1975, chapter 587) A non=vetin,g student member was added to the college beard of trutteet. Section 6306 of the Education LaW remaint theprin- 1977 (Laws of 1977, chapter 1641The Student member cipal ttatutory authority enumerating theresponsibili= was granted parliamentary privileges, including ties and dutieS of community college trustees. This the riga to make and second motions andplane provision has, however, undergone manY changessince items on the agenda. Student memberswere sub- 1948. What follows is a chronologicalsummary of s4= ject to code of ethics and conflict of interett nificant modifications to the statutorypowers of com- proVitiont. munity college trustees through the 1985 s(Tssion ofthe New York State Legislature. 1985 (Laws of 1985, chapter 338) Votingpn"vileges were granted to student members of communitycol- 1951 (Laws of 1951, chvter 735) An amendmenttosec- lege boards of trustees. tion 6305 (now section 6304) of the RducationLaw added the three options for budget execution by Additionally, legislation was enacted in 1984 (LaWs community collete truSteet and administiations, of 1984, chapter 552) sulistantially amendingArticle 126 the so-called "Plans A, B and C." of the Education LAW to authorize tWoor more contig- 1953 (Lawt of 1953, chapter 271) This uous countiestojoin together to establish a neff type of was a general revi- local slontor for a community college. Thisnew local sion of the community college statutory frame- sponsor was designated a "Community College Region," work disconthuting the temporary technicalinttit= to be governed by a board of trustees comprited uteti making additional provisions for financing of rep= resentatives of the participating count:lea With certainlim- community colleges, and edtablithing the continu- ited exceptions, this regional board of ing basis for New York's public two-_year college trustees carries on the role and responsibilities asskgrted to hothcommu- syttem. SEtion 6306 was amended to authorize the ni_W college boards of trustees andsponsors in the gov- local legislative hody to appoint one of itsmem- ernance of colleges not sponsored by community college bers to t.he college board of trustees. regions. The 1984 amendments added a new section,_6310, to tors. The college trustees, subject to the approval the Education Law to provide for administration of com- of State University trustees, shall appoint apresi- munity college regions as follo*S: dent (whether permanent, acting, or interim), approvecurriculwa approve budgets, establish tuition and fees (within legal limits), approve site and The community college region is to be governed by a temporary and permanent facilities. The college board of trustees consistingof 14 members trustees shall provide for the awarding of certifi- - seven cates and diplomas, and the conferring of appro- members are appointed by the legislative bodies of priate degrees on the recommendation of thepre- the counties participating ht the region.Six mem- sident and faculty. In addition, the college trustees bers are appointed by the Governor, and one mem- upon the recommendation of the president shall ber is an elected, voting student member; board appoint personnel,adopt salary schedules, and members are appointed for terms of nine years; approve the organization rattan of the college.

Eligibility for county participation in selection of the 3. Additional Legal Parameter regional board is based upon the percentage of total The legal framework governing the functions of the student attendance provided by that county at a corn= board of trustees includes the following precepts: munity college sponsored by the region; a.

C. General Construction Law section 41 requires any The regional board of trustees has full contracting action of a community college board of trustees, as power* a public body, to be approved by a majority of all members, that is 6 out of 10 trustees. d. The regional board of trustees is authorized to par- b. ticipate with other educational inatitutions in cooperative educational programs and services; The New York State Attorney General has advised that college trustees are local public officers who must e. Mean oath of office with the clerk of the college's sponsoring municipality (1982 Op. Atty. Gert 30). Rebendy, The regional board of trustees is a corporategovern= the Attorney d'eneral has further adviSed (1985 mental body; title to all property of the college, real Op. Atty. Gen. F-14) that voting community college or personal, is vested in the regional board of trustees. studenttrustees are also public officers who are The 1984 legislation is permissive in nature and par- required to file an oath of office withtheCierk of ticipation by eligible countieS in a community college the sponsor. Since, under the Education Law, the pri- region is optionaL Under the provisionS of chapter 287 mary requirement for election of a student trustee of the Laws of 1985, the sponsorship of Corning Commu- is a membership in the college's student body, and nitr College Was formally transferred from the Corning not residence in the college's sponsoring municipal- City School District to the regional board of truatees (see ity; a student board member need not be of the spon- also "Nt-Ason Report" discussed below). soring municipality to qualify as a trustee. 4. Earlier Studies and Recommendations 2. Regulations of the State University Trustees A number of State University and independent Task Pursuant to the statutory authority contained in the Forces have assested the role of community college bus- Education Law (Education UM, Section 355, Subd. tees over the years. The recommendations of those stud- par. c,, and Education Law, Article 26), the State Univer- ies most applicable to the issue of trustee responsibility sitrilustees have promulgated regulations (Ei_NYCRR, are summarized below: Parts 600-607), which constitute the Code of Standardt and Proceduresfor the Administration and Operation September 1969The Putare graze Pubtte TWo Year of Community Colleges under the Programuf State_Uni- Coikges in New York Slate versity of New York. Specifically, Section 604.2 of the Code (A Weport by Peat, MaiWick, Mitthell and Co., known as the "Nel- sets forth the responsibilities and duties of college trustees. son Report") 604.2 kerfronsibilillea and Duhisi af the college This report_proposed a new community college struc- Thustees. Under the time-honored practice of Amer- ture including the following: ican colleges, trustees of colleges, as legal official bodies corporate, concentrate on establishing poli- 1. cies governing the college, and delegate retponti- The State to be divided into 25 community college bilitY for the administration and execution of those service areas incorporating all counties; a board of policies to their employed professional administra- trusteet of each service area to be comprised of 15 members serving 5-year terms (9 appointed by Gov- 3; ernor and six from counties in service areas); Remove existing "Plan X Bi C" options and substi- tute mechanism "which would retain the rights_and 2. responsibilities of the sponsor while providing for the Each service area to have one board of trustees gov- flexibility required to maintain educational integrity" erning all community colleges located in area; January 1985The Chalknge and the Choke 3. (Reportof theIndependent Commission on the Future of the State A board of trustees for each service area to be University; Ralph P. Davidion and Harold L. Enarson, Co-Chairs) incorporated; The major recommendations relating to community 4. colleges were: Thustees to have full operating authority over colleges in their service area subject to the general 1. supervision of the State University tnistees; and Encourage regional community colleges where exist-. ing sponsor support is insufficient to maintain col- 5. lege programs; Trustees to manage their own budgetary and financial affairs; to be the employer of faculty and staff; to have full contracting authority; and to hold title ClarifY the responsibilities of the college trustees, col- to all real and personal property lege administrators and local sponsors. It should be noted that the majority of these recom- C. Statement of Present Problems mendations were incorporated into the provisions of the community college regions legislation discussed above. _Tensions with local sponsors can result from the lack of adequate funding by the local sponsors or by their Ociober1973 ; ItekOtt qf the Milk Force on commu- attempts to Interfere in the day-to-44r operations of the nity Colleges (Charles W. Ingler, Chair) college. While such instances are not uniform across tfie State University system, the independence of the trus- The major recommendations wer* asfollows: tees with regard to local sponsors must be maintAined. The trustees are charged with the overall policy-making responsibilities for local community colleges. Insome Thittee responsibilities regarding administration of cases,however, lotal boards of truttees venture beyond the college should be clarified; the policy-maidng area and intrude in the administrative operations of thecollege and thus can compromise 2. the roles of thepresident, the adminittration and the - A statutory amendment was proposed specifying that faxulty in the campus governance process. Whether this trustees have fa governance authority in the areas is done at the initiative of the trustees or on behalf of of appointments, curricula, budget, and budget exe- the 10-cal sponsor, it can create confuSion and discord. cution subject to regulations,policies and approv- In performing their responsibilities, trustees have indi- als of the State University Thistees; and cated some ambiguity with regard to the specific locus of authority. Some trustees interpret their responsibili- 3. ties themselvesiother trustees look to the county attor- The state should appoints majority of each college ney or seek advice from the State University There is board of trustees. Significant variation among the campuses with regard to these interpretations. Some boards of trustees have the responsibility for nego- Petorwary_1976Ftnal ItellOrt= &aft Unkertlty Thai= tiating collective bargaining agreements; in_ other tee Committee on the Special Problems of the Corn= instances that actIvity it performed by the local sponsor; miadtg Colleges (Darwin J. Wales* Chair) and in still other cases, there is a divided responsibility for interaction with different unions. Again patterns are The major recommendations were as follows: not uniformand trustess' authority in this area is a matter of concern at some campuses. 1. There seems to be a difference of opinion but no con- Make no changes to existing governance structure; sensus on the subject of the length of terms of trustees. On some campuses the workingcomposition of boards 2. appears to be a problem There must be a :east six mem- Clarify responsibilities and relationships of sponsor, bers of the board present to achieve a quorum. More- trustees, and State University; over, a minimum of six members must approve any act

113 of the lxiard. Some truttees do not appearon a regular Issue 4 br.sis at beard meetings. On Some campuses withunfil- Relationship Between Faculty led vacancies and where one or two beerd membertdo and Presidents and Trustees not attend metings on a regular basis and refuse to resign, it is difficult to trantact butinest. An additional A geed relationship between the faculty and thepres- complicating factor can be the length of time takento identand the board of trustees helps to promotegood fill vacancies on 15oards of trustees. morale and the smooth functioning ofan institution. & B. Background and Statement D. Methodology Of Present Problem The committee reviefied previous reports andresults Vastly differing relationships betWeen facultyand of thesurvey taken by the committeeon governance, and administration and between faculty and beards of trut- hdd discussions withiepresentatives of varioussegments tees exist throughout the community colleges of SUNY of the community colleges, including representativesof As a resul there are campuset Where positiverelation- the Association of Boards of Thistees of the Conunu- ships exist and others where low morale existSand ray Colleges of the State University of New York impacts negatively on the effective functioningof the institution. E. Finding8 C. Methodology

The independence of War& of trustees With regard Presidents, faculty and trustees were surveyedat well to their relationships with local sponsors is aproblemon as interviewed in depth in order to gain a clearer under- some campuses. There also is considerable variation standing of internal governance within thecommurdty among the campuses with regard to interpretation of the college systems of SUNY. responsibilities of local boards of trustees. Clarification of their respontibilities isnecessary to address these is.sues. D. Findings There are significant differences in the roles of the boards of trustees in the collective b rgaining precess Relationships betweenfactilty and presidents andfire= and with regard to persmmel deci:tr. Allowingthe corn= ulty and trustes range from excellent topoor. Faculty munity college Wards of trustees to become the legal members on some amtputes have 3xpressedTheir per- employers of faculty and staff would minimize these ception of a lack of communication between acuityand problems. trustee& The ability of boardt of trustees to conductbuskiess is 'IVio factors appear to be crucial in determiningthe qual- often impacted by both attendance fitctors andquorum ity of internal governance. On campuses wherethe Ma= requirements. Minimum participation levels forboard tionships between faculty and administrationare alver- members to remain on local boardsef trustees would sarial, internal governance in the traditionalsense tends be helpful in addressing thiS ittue. The qucTstionof the_ to suffen On campuses where the perception of number of trustees needed to =Neve a thared a quorum Should partnership exists, the perceived quality of internalgov- continvo 1:ie reviewed in consultation with the State ernance tends to_bt more positive. University: Boards of trustees have been hamperedin Respondents expressed a need for more effectivecom- performing their functions as a result of delayS infilling munication. The needlor &reciprocal flow of vacancies. informa= don was emphasized. Faculty also have littleunderstan- ding of the role of SUNY Central and frequently,of the E Recommended AttiOn role of trustees, president& deans and otheradministra- tive functions within the college. It is recommended that appropriate statutorychangts be pursued to clarify theroles and responsibilitiesof com- E. Re-commended Action munity college boards of trutteet through the elimina- tions of Plans A and B of the Education Lawand a It is recommended that the Chancellorencourage an provision of clearer delineation of their responsibilities community colleges to reaffirm their commitmentsto the under Plan C or any additional governance optionswhich internal governance processes whichwe essential to help- are provided. ing a college accomplish itt mission. It it further recommended that legislation bedevel- oped to mandate minimum Ward meetingparticipation levels for community college beards oftrutWet. Vacancies on boards of trustees should befilled as exped- itiously as possible but inno case should this action take longer than six months.

8114 UMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

TO ME CHANCELLOR and that the role be expanded to include greater leadership, advocacy and technical service responsibili- 1. It is recommended that the State Universityprovide ties. Once clarified; this definition should becom- leadership in seeldng the following amendmentato municated to the centzal administration of SUNY and the New York State Education Law, Article 126: to all campus conttituencies. Within the State University's central administra- _ tion, the role of the Office of Community Colleges to require for county sponsored commum"ty colleges in the cOordination of academic programs oughtto a_.:lingle fiscal mode of operation which gives fiscal be reviewed with respect to the role of the Office of autonomy to the college while retaining appropriate the Vice Chancellor for Aczalemic Programs, Policy accountability for local sponsor.; and Plaaning. The Office of Community Colleges should beencour, ii aged to continue and, to the extentnecessary, to provide the option_ for ajoint petition to SUNY,by incrOaSe statistical data gathering and analysis and a local sponsor and a local Valid Of trustees, to relin- provide otherpertinent information ona system-wide quish localcontrol and local support ofa COMmunity basis. These data should then be sharW withcam- . college to the State University of New York and;in pus constituencies. return, permit colleges tb lieciiine fully fundedstate operations; 4. It is recommended that the Chancellcrencourage all community colleges to real:Lan their commitments to c. the internal governance processes whichare essen- to permit all sponsors the option of forminga regional- tial to helping a college accomplish its mission. community college following the Corning Commu- nity College model; d. to makt the board of trustees inall community colleges the legal employer of all college personnel,giv-_ ing them all the appropriate rights and authoritYof an employer, including the right and responsibility to negotiate and administer all labor contracts and to allow the boards of trustees to hire legalcoun- sel to represent the colleges' interestsin all legal matters;

2. It ia recommended that appropriatestatutory changeS be pursued to clarify the roles and responsibilitiesof corrununity college boards of truaWet through the elimination of Plans A and B of the Education LaW and aproVition of cleare- delineation of theirrespon- sibilities under Plan C or any additionalgovernance options which are provide& It is further recommended that legislation be developed to mandate minimum board meeting participation levels for conununity college lloardS oftruttees. Vacancies on boards of trustees should be filledas expeditiausly as_possible but in nocase should this action take longer than six months.

3. It is reconunended that the Stide Universityof New Yorkbetter define the role of the Office of Ereputyto the Chancellor for Community Collegezs 1:Yothin tenns of how it functions within SUNY and alsoin relationship to the thirty community college=opuses; 9 11 5 CHAPTER H STRENGTHENING COMMUNITY COLLEGE AND SUNY STME-OPERATED COLLEGE TIES AND RELATIONSHIPS

.; OVERVIEW appointment of a University-wide study committee to monitor transfer policies and procedures as well as ways "The Commission believes that ties between SUNY and and means for senior college and community college fac- theconununity colleges should be strengthenedTheaate- ulty to accept one another as equal partners. It urged the wide system provides additional opportunities for SUNY's Chancellor to direct expanded University-wide research Aumuiemic and administrative leadership, a source of poten- to assist in decision-making concerning transfer policies tial benefit to thecommunity colleges." (The Challenge and procedures, noting the issues of How of students who and The Choie4 1985) While this report is the moat recent transfer within SUNY byprograrn, and the persistence rate call for the strengthening of community college and state of students who transfer. operated relationships, it was precededby several SUNY ht terms of intercampus relationships, the Task Force reports reconunending a closer rdationthip betWeen the called for as many articulation agreementS as possible members of the SUNY Wally. The Nelson Report (969) in comparable programs with both University-wide reg- reconunendedexpanded transfer opportunities for the istration of such programs and individual campus pub- community college graduates; Amity devdopment through licity to student& It recommended that the Faculty Senate SUNr-established_preservice and inservice programs; and and Faculty Council establish ajoint committee to develop faculty exchanges to improve understandings and_ rela- a series of model agreements facilitating transfenIt sim- tionships. The Wessell Report (1977) recommended that ilarly recommended that trander analysis be bated upon community college graduates be assured places in upper transcripts rather than the type of two-year degree env division classes. ned in order to facilitate transfer of two-year graduates Irian unpublished SUNY docrunent entitled "Report to from occupationally oriented degree programs. Laitly, the the Chancellor, 'Mak Force on Articulation" (May 1978),_ Task Force on Articulation reconunended that senior col- extensive recommendations on transfer ardculation were leges be required to identify transfer students and send made Theserecoramendations were directed at grade reports to a specified articulation person at the University-Wide, campus, and inter-campus level& At the two-year college A monitoring role on transfer student University-wide level it recommended that the Chan- success was suggested for SUNY cellor require campus procedures which guarantee equal In terms of specific campusactivity,_the Task Force on opportunity for access to thejunior level for both two- Articulation suggested identification of an office at each year colltlie graduates and native students enteringthe senior campus responsible for effecting local policies and junior year in comparable programs, with students so programs for transfer students. In their final reconunen- notified at each SUNY unit; that senior institutions work dation, the Task Force on Articulation strongly advocated with tvvayear institutions to develop new upper divi- no discrimination in admission to selective admission sion programs that continue lower division programs where curricu* calling for equity in consideration of nalive and Interest is high andsuch programs are not otherwise avail- transfer students. able; and that the Chancellor require senior units to seek In April 1960, the SUNY Roard of Thrstees adopted a a 40:60 ratio of lower divisional to upper divisional stu- transfer policy to reaffirm and strengthen the earlier ixd- dents, noting that this would enhance transfer opportu- icy of November 1972. The reF-1,,tion included authori- nities and reduce recent recruitment by senior institutions zation for the Chancellor to take. s necessary to assure of students whose needs could be more profitably served implementation of the policy at e campus, and required at SUNY two-year colleges._ each campus to submit annually.'eptember 1 a state- Additionally, the 1978_Th5k Force on Articulation recom- ment of the administration and acac, -nic procedures to mended a new fUndin4 formula to encourage serdor insti- effect implementation of the policy. ThL policy indicated tutions to increase transfer enrollment It recommended that a SUNY two-year graduate, when accepted in paral-

101 1 6 tel programs at the baccalaureatecampus; will be accorded The committee reviewed recommendationson trans- full junior standing and given the opportunityto com- fer articulation being_addreated by the Faculty Senate/ plete the degree within four additional Serristers.Interim Faculty Council regarding the 1980 SUN? tranafer pet= guidelines were issued establishing various enablingpre= icy. It aft() reviewed andresearched a series ofrecom- tocols includiriga student appealprocess to effectuate mendations offered by the SUNY Council of Two-Year the implementation of thepolity Business Faculty Administrators concerning the inhib= Thepresent Task Force included among itsgreat of ton; king influence that accreditation by the American Assem- cern the following: bly of Collegiate Schools of Business Accreditation (a) Standards and Guidelines has on the trander process in thebusiness are& information systems to monitor the flow ofcommunity college stirdentS to public and privatesenior The following issues and reconunendationsare the result colleges; of the Committee's deliberations:

(b)_ _ itiSightS On the transfer process itself and itsinflu- A. Issue 1Inibrmatlon on the ence on the flow of community college transfer_(fman- Flow of Transfer Students cial silt acceptance of credits, tinielinett, adViSement, etc.); B. Background (c) One prirnarrmission of community colleges isto_pr- the existence and effeetiverreSS of earnpus-to-campus pare students for upper division work leading to a bac- articulation agreements; calaureate degree. The issue of data collection regarding (d) articulation is one of primmy importance. The changet in atatittica since SUNY's 1980 policy on transfer,as well -Senior college faculty perceptions of the fidelityof the as current and future data, deserve attention. There isa community college education:3nd its effecton the need for information that would indicate transfer pat; transfer process, including effects of recentchanges terns for community college students and graduates to in general education requirementsat the receiVing colleges; SUNY receiving colleges.

(e) _ C. Statement of Present Problem the heed to explore cooperative arrangementsbetween twolear/fouryttir fficillty Which allow greater shar- No easily amcessible comorehentive &Atliare availa- ing of physical and human resourcet; ble to allow adequate monitoring of SUNY transfersin order to recommend policy alteratives. It is difficult toascer- (1) tain whether perceived problem areaS are borneout by the status of articulation of occupationalprogram grad- existing statistics. uates including ways and means to enhance their opportunity for transfer B. Methodology

the broader role of SUNY in terms of accountability Data from the SIM Central Office of Institutional for the outcomes of the two-year educational Research and the State Education Departmentwere pro- reviewet In addition, the SUNY Applicationt ProCEYS- gram, particularly as it relates to graduatesuccess in transfer and job placement sing Center prepared special reports on transfer and native- student statistics for fifteen bachelor's degreeprograms identified as possible problem areas. The committee ',lamed with invetigating the:e con- E. Findhlgs cerns determined that it should attempt to address most of these issues by gaining the insights of bothtransfer articulation officers and transfer counselors It ma discovered early that there existsno state-wide at the two- detailed information on the success of transferstudents year colleges through a survey. The survey WaS sentto in baccalaureate programs or the statua of transfer each of the thirty community college presidentsasking stu- for an institutional response to qustions related dents as they begin upper division work, includingaato= to the ciate degreecredits applied to _the degree. Somedata concerns which the committee was revieWing. Addition- indicate that junior-level trander atudents ally, the committee commissioned data retrievalthrough are at least as the SUNY Application-a Protting Centerto auecessful (73%)in persisting forone year beirond trona- compare and fer as nativejuniors (72%). Some SUNY four-yearinstitu- contrast access of two-year colle transfer graduates tions regularly report on the progress of transfer with native students in highly competitive selective students admis- to the sending community colleges; others donot, or do sion programs at the receiving colleges. so sporadically.

117 Major information gathered from available data: Information concerning the status of transfers as they 1. hegin urlotr-division work; Le., sending college, cred- 'A significant majority of community college transfer its atazt.irted, credits accepted, pre-transfer major, etc. studentS move to four-year institutions in theirgeo- graphic region. b. Information to monitor admission toprograma at four- 2. year colleges where it appears transfers are not read- Since the 1980 aoard of Thrttees policy change, the ily accepted into a parallel program; and latest official SUNY data indicate an increase of 1,000 studenta per year transfer to SUNY receiving college4 c. while the number of transfers per year to independ- Systematic feedback to community colleges on theprog- ent colleges has not changed. Enrollment at commu- ress of their transfer graduate-9,M well aS compari- nity colleges increased during that period but son to native students, toward the baccalaureate increased preference for transfer to SUNY units is clear degree. The need for such an information system is urgent and long overdue. 3,

Nearly as many transfer students without an associ- A. Issue 2Outcomes_ of the . ate's degree (3,185) move to four-year colleges as those SUNY Syatem of Community Colleges with degrees (3,993). The percentage breakdown is similar for independent colleges. B. Background

No comprehensive follow-up of graduates of thecont- There are many upper-diVision programs in nearly all munity colleges exists on a system-wide basis. Thus SUNY disciplines in all regions of NOW York State. Availa- is unable to accurately describe theoutcomes of itscom- bility of baccalaureate programs is evident munity colleges as a system. It it difficult to represent the value of community college education to sblnificantpea= 5. ple who need to make fiscal and programmatic decisions The most popular programs for.transfers appear to coricerningcommuniW colleges in a competitive envi-. be Business (14% of all community college trans- ronment without graduate outcome data collected on a fers), Education (10.6%), and Social and Behavioral system basis. Sciences (9%). But 28% of all transfers enter the four- year college with no declared major. C. Statement of Present Problems 6. No system-wide follow-up study of community col- In the seven compedtive programs selected for review, lege graduates exists. SUNY and the collegeSare unable transfer Students possessing a degree were as_read- to demonstrate accountability for educational outcomes ily accepted as fust time native studentt. liansfer stu- of community college graduates in a comprehensivestate- dents are far more likely than native students to enroll wide manner when accepted. A similar pattern exists for transfers without associate degrees. Theprograms analyzed D. Methodology are in Engincerim Business, Mathematics, Computer &cience, Nursing, Physical Therapy, and Pharmacy, Discussions were held with campus preSidenta, deans, and faculty; SUNY central staff and state legislators. 7. In Spite of the positive findings, campus-by-camPus E. Findings problems were identified. For example, in Business Administration, SUNY four-year colleies accept 76% No system-wide graduate follow-up studies havebeen of all transfer applicants and 57% of all freshmen appli- done and preddents, faculty and central staff perceivethe cants,but for one fourcyear institution the figuresare need for such a process. reversed. E Recommended Action

F. Recommended Action The SUNY Office ofCommunity Colleges shouldform an advisory committee of community college institutionaloffi- SUNY Central adminiadation needs to develop an infor- cers, central staff and others to plan and implementa mation system to adequately collect data on commu- system-wide follow-up study of community collegrad; nity college transfers prior to and after entering uates beginning With 1987 graduates and continuing such baccalaureate programs including: research on an on-going basis. The folloWup studiesshould

12 118 be sponsored by SUNY with required pardcipation by fouryear campuses was felt to lead to an inability of each community college in the system. The implementa- the community colleges to develop a general edu- tion of thiS recommendation is essential for establish- cation program which can be transferred to multiple ing a state-wide program of full accountability for the colleges. In addition, and for the Same reason, an indi- graduates of community colleges. vidual student who has not selected a particular transfer campus haS difficulty inplanning his or her lower A. Issue 3TranSfer Articulation division prwram of study. Campuses vary in their pol- Sub Issue 3.a.Availability of icy on the transfer of general education requirement% Minster Opportunities Some campuses waive all lower division general education requirementS for AA. and A.S. students, while B. Background others rely on specific course matching. The committee sought to elicitinformation abouttrans- 3. fer opportunities, in hoth SUNY and independent insti- General Curriculum Courses tutions, in three areas. The first pertained to the avail- Community college respondents were asked to list ability of actual programs on four-yearcampuses; the effective and problematic aspects of transferas they second to mattert of general education; and, the third occur in arms other than general education. The most to broader curricula concerns. Basedupon general significant problem relates to accreditation,or impressions and anecdotal information, these issues accreditation-41kt; curriculum demands, particularly seemed to merit Specific exploration in business. Given that,nationally, similar problems frequently arise in the field of nursing, the fact that C. Statement of Present Problem only one campus mentioned this is of interest Three respondents noted that "teat Validation" wasa hut- In order to assess the current State of SUNY transfers derance to transfer. There is apparently somecon! it is necessary to know whether sufficient Rrogramsare cern that the academic standards of the community available to transfer students and what curricular bar- college programs are being questioned by such riers may exist which inhibit transfer. actions. A number of campuses noted an inequitable distinction between native andtransfer students, D. Methodology mentioningsuch things as the &Inure to transfer grades of D, and the failure to adndt transfers into Specific Conclusions are derived from survey re§pons offered programs when the academic record would appear by twenty community colleges. io justify such adnisSion. Communication was felt to be problematic at times, with respondent§ noting E. Findings that departmental requirements at the four-yearcam- puseA sometimes Were changed without Worming the community colleges; that catalogs were Sometimes Pregrammatic Deciencies unclear in regard to transfer; and that transcript eval- It wasgenerallyperceived that, across the state,pro- uations were either abSent or delayed. gram availability does exist No program deficiencies were noted in the private sector, while only three 4. fields were mentioned With any fitiquencyin SUNY: Effective rrantibr Features Business Administration, Engineering, and HOW Tech- Community colleges were asked to indicateany spe- nology and Food Management Relative to the first cial features which they felt aided in the transferproc- two, the concerns pertain to access rather than to the ess. Regarding the match of curricula, the respondents absence of the programs them-elves. Addidonally,_ cited course equivalency guides and courte--by=Course community college students are inhibited in transfer transfer agreements. More general transfer to the extent that course schedules and program offer- guidet and explicit catalog displays were also lis- ings do not accommodate the needs for part-time study. ted. The waiving of portion§ ofgeneral education requirements, and the fiexibility to do so,were noted 2. as helpfuL Joint admiSaion agreements and 2+2 coop- General Educalion erative programs were also mentioned. Regarding Campuses were asked to descrilYe any problems in the communication and contact the respondents transfer of credit towardgeneral education. Half of applauded opportunities for two and four,year fac- the respondents &Scribed pmblems in regard to SUNY ulty contact department to department. Thepres- institutions, while three indicated problems relative ence of transfer counselors on the four-year campuset to private institutions. The degree of specificity of die was thought to assist in the movement of students problem deacriptions differed markedly, with such and in their orientation. fregular viSita to thecom- specifics existing only in retard to SUNY. Lack ofcon- munity colleges by such transfer counselors was alao sistency in the general education components at the thought beneficial. Finally, in regard to information

13 119 exchange, early transcript assessment was thought C. Statement of Present Problem very important, as was the collection and dissemination of information on the success of transfer stu- The issue is to determine the student support serv- dents. A transfer newsletter was mentioned by one ices on four-year campuses which, from the two-year col- respondent lege experience, are currently most critical in effecting successful transfer programs. 5. Campus Suggestions D. Methodology Campuses were asked to offer ideas for the improvement of transfer opportunity, particularly as it relates Of the twenty surveys which were returned, sixteen to general education Their recommendations included: responded ba the question regarding student support serv- the acceptance by foumyear colleges of associate ices. Characteristics of effective programs and features degrees as evidence that lower ditriaion general edu- of areas which cause special problems were compiled and cation requirements have been me4 the collabora- analyred. The information was ongmized into four broad tion among finir-year institutions to achieve greater areas. Recommendations were drawn from this material. consistency in general education requirementa; the publication, especially in minima of specific details B.: Findings of articulationand of general education requirements in a common format; and the improvement of flexi- Four broad, thematic areasemerged as critical to stu- bility in regard to course equivalencies. dent suwort services in an effective transfer process: (a) personal support services; (b) entrance processes; (c) F. Recommended Action communications; (d) financial support. "Personal support services" highlights the importance of having a transfer It is re6mmended that the Office of theVice Chan- person/office on the four-year campus in azidition to the cellor for Academic Programa, Policy and Planning, work- person/office responsible for transfer articulatioN acces- ing with the Office of Community Colleges, coordinate sible before and during the entering process. Special ori- efforts_to alleviate program deficiencies and transferobsta- entations and workshops for transfer students were alao des. There should be establithed a University-wide Com- noted as important in this transitionalexperience,addres- mittee, appointed by the Chancellor, which among other sinLneeds specific to this population. The second theme, things would have _responsibility for monitoritig the prob- "entrance processes," includes recruitment, admissions, lems connected with the provision of transfer opportuni- and registration. Campus visits bylour-year schools, spe- ties. The Committee should identify and promote cialized program recruitment, and visits early in the aca- innovative models of cooperation that enhance transfer demic year were noted as useful. 1;ack of timely and opportunities within the SUNY system. It IS further recom- accurate evaluation of transfer credit, acceptance quo- mended that receiving campuses consider the implemen- tas, non-acceptance into a major prior to attending dosed tation of the suggestions throughout this summary which sections at registration and absence of reserved housing require little or no policy revision or resource reallocation. for transfer students are some problem areas. Early pre- registration for tranater students, no application fee prior IL Sub Issue_3.b.Student Support Services to registering, and "rapid admissions" were examples of at the Rceiving C011eges helpful processes. Clear and timely "communications" is the third area of importance emerging from the responses. B. Background Lack of clarity in both academic and non-academic requir- ments was indicated as a hinderance to an effective bans- The traditional role of student suwort services has fer process. The fourth area is "financial support" Avail- emerged from addressing the needs of freshmen who enter abiliV of scholarshiRand aid packages was indicated directly from high school.A sthe number of transfer stu-_ several times as an important factor in transfer decisions, dents increass,_ the differing nee& of this "new student" noting the private colleges' strength in this area. population call for rethinking and modification of serv- tow and methods of delivery._ Thetopic is &matter ofpro- F. Recommended Action fessiufial dialcsue and study. 'Ranter counsors and other student affitirs professionals have a growing interest in It is recommended that SUNY Central Administration enhancing the transfer process. A conference held on _ assist and facilitate the development of personal sup- May 16, 1986 titled "'Minder Issues: Pretent and Future," port services, timely and accurateentrance processea clear focused on ftwilitating transfer from SUNY two-year to and timely communications, and greater financial sup- SUNY four-year schools, and is an eimmple of the cum port for transfer students at each of its receiving colleges. rent concern regarding transfer matters. The May 1978 At minimum, each receivingSUNY college should have "Report to the ChancellorTask Force on Articulation" a transfer person/office in addition to a transfer articu- supports the importance of the issue which, eight years lation person/office to oversee the support service area later, calls for renewed attention. and the institutional receptivity to the transfer student

14 120 A. Sub Iscue ac..Value of Formal out course-by-course review and without restrictions Aktictilation Agreements of space availability and program completion in complete synchronization with native students. B. Background 2. While increasing numbers of formal articulation agree- Simple, clear, concise explanation of agreement. ments have been developed betWeen SUNY two-year and four-year institutions over the last decade, concerns have been raiSed regarding the validitar and effectiveness of these Up-te-date course equivalency listings. agreements. This issue hat been the topic of diacusaions at a number of SUNY meetings, garticularly of academic 4. vice presidents ancideans._Howeven despite the inher- Outline of requirementsspecifically with regard to ent strength of the 1980 SUNY Board of TruStees resolu- courses and minimum QPA. tion on articulation, and despite the impressive number of agreements reached, actual transfer practices are often 5. _ perceived to contradict the intent of the Board resolu- Formal and informal contact among faculties and deans; tion. At this time there is an increase in the amount of on-going dialogue among departments. communication and cooperation between two-year colleges and University centers as well as four-year institutions, due to the enrollment decline. ThiS situation is The features that seem tolimil the effectivenessof such advantageousfor the much-needed reforms in transfer agreements are: admittions. A limited number of two-year and four-year institutions have been develving 2+2 orjoint admissions agreements which provide a stronger assurance 1. of the fidl transfer promised but not always perceived as Agreements that are Wo vague to determine course delivered by the articulation agreement. equivalency, too general, obscure, lack information, are meaningless, and include no course equivalency C. Statement of Present Problem lists.

Articulation agreements provide a useful mechanism 2. for facilitatinginteraction between two-year and four-year Latk Of tirtiOy updating Cif Stith agreententS every two faculW as well as assisting student transfer. The agree- to three years; . ments, however, must be reviewed periodically for their accuracy with regard to.curricalum. Many are too gen- 3. eral, vague, or inflexible, while others are too wordy or Full credit for studies is of questionable value when lack the necessary critical information to be meaning- there is no assurance that the remaining require- ful. In addition, some institutions require transfer stu- mehtt for the baccalaureate can be completed in four dents to take additional credits despite articulation years (e.g., accepting all credits in transfer and requir- agreements and do not adequately inform students of this ing more than_sixty-four credits to complete the degree requirement prior to admission. or requiring three to four extra courses for graduation). D. Methodology 4. Campus transfer contacts at all thirty_SUNY commu- Negotiations over specific course-to=course equiva; nity colleges were surveyed in March 1986 regarding the lents often ignore the valklity of the two-year features that make formal articulation agreements most institution. effective or that limit the effectiveness of such agreements. They were also asked to identitr campuses that exemplify either good or bad features. Nineteen campuses responded to the survey and commented on this issue. E. Findings F. Recommended Action The Math features that seem to make formal articulation It is recommended _that SUNY Central Administration agreementsmost effective are: issuetOcampus pretidenta Suggetted gnidelirWs for the content usage, interpretation; annual review and_pub-; 1. Hefty of articulation agreementa_SUNY may wish to con- Ideally, acceptance of A.A. and A.S. two-year dewees sult with the_presidenta IV:Mende Vice Pretidenizi_Faculty intact guaranteed tgansfer to felljunior standing with- Senate; and Faculty Council for suggested guidelines.

15 121 A. Sub Issue 3.d.The quaft of transfer F. IWcommended Action advisement and preparation at SUNY community colleges The SUNY Office of Community Colleges should identify and promulgate models of advisement and preparation for transfer vvithin the thirty community colleges. B. Background Community colleges should ensure timely, accurate and accessible informationaystems for their students. Cme- The quality_of advisement of transfer students by the ful consideration should be given by colleges to offering sending community colleges affects the transfer process. low enrollment courses where such courses have been The literature, as well as many constituencies within listed as part of a degree program and students have expec- SUNY,suggest that resgonsibility for the quality of the tations of enrollment and transfer. transfer process resides partially within community college advisement itself Given the lateness with wWch many students decide to enter into, and transfer from, the community colleges, the transfer advisement process needs A. Sub Issue 3.e.1980SUNY Board of to be effective and current if a smooth transition is to Trustees Transfer Policy occur. B. Background C. Statement of Present Problem The 1980 Board of Trustees Transfer Policy along with The quality and currency of the community college RS mandated implementation guidelines was promulgated transfer advisement process affects the ability of com- to uldress a concern expressed by community college munity college students to effectively transfer to SUNY faculty and staff of fairness and equity toward commu- receiving institutions. nity college graduates who were attempting_transfer to receiving colleges- within the SUNY system. Concern con- tinues to be expressed as to what effect thepoiçy haS D. Methodology had on the opportunity for transfer by community college students. Lack of adherence to procedural require- Through a survey, twenty comMunity colleges respOn- ments within the policy either suggests that the procedures cted to questions of current practice, effectiveprocessm, are too bureaucratic or that there is little shared com- and problemt in acilitating transfer through advisement mitment to increating trarsfer opportunities at SUNY and preparation of students. receiving colleges. E. Findings C. Statement of Present Problem Responses by the community colleges regarding the There is aneed to evaluate how well the 1980 SU' current efforts to advise and prepare students to trans- Board '11-anSfer Policy has facilitated transfer within fer centered on informational systems, particularly fac- and what modifications would make the policy r. ulty advisement and counselinggrogramt at Well at liaison effective. with receiving college staff and faculty The responses by the college-9 regarding effective practices which advise and prepare transferS centered on information SyStems D. Methodology which are accurate and timely, coupled with formal and informal liaison with the receiving college staffand fac- Transfer counselors and transfer articulation officers ulty Articulation agreements, rectiVing college viaitations, at each of the thirty community colleges were asked to transfer days, and infbrmal liaisons are emphasized as share their perceptions of the effectiveness of the 1980 effective practices by community college responders. Board of Trustees 71-ansfer Policy. Twenty-two responses Things which community colleges do which negativ- were received. ely affect the transfer process center upon inaccurate, incomplete or untimelyinformatiotvto transfer students. E. Findings Curriculum problems affecting transfers centered on not offering low enrollment courses necesaary for transfer, and 1. not determininglransferability of courses prior to pro- Enforcement is essential. gram initiation. Several colleges felt that it was unrealistic to develop expectations of full transfer when a Student 2. is enrolled inan A.A.S. degree. Similarly, some commu- "Parallergrograms Should be defined, or there should nity colleset felt we should not encourage marginal stu- be a greater effort to design "parallel programaLt or dents into applying for competitive programa at the there should be a more systematic means for trans- receiving colleges. lating and transition between related programs.

16 122 reflect a similar view; Smallsrants from the Office Of/Uzi= 3; _ Provision should be tattle tb strengthen the policy demic Programs, Policy_and Planning have supported to say that "...Regihning with the fallsemester of 1982, conferences in specific disciplines such as writing or busi- graduates of _two-year colleges within State Univer- ness. The grant stipulates that thesponsoring campus sity of New York Urill be accepted in parallel pro- must involve two-year and four-year collegefaerilz A con- grams at baccalaureate campuses of the University; sortia of Albanyarea colleges,two-year andfour-year; and will be accorded falljunior standing? is currentli exploring avenues for faculty development through sharing of campus resources. ThiS itSile bears 4. on more than the transferarticulation_prohlem and there- Department and program faculty at the four-year col- fore it seen as a 5ettarate problem needing attention. leges should make more of an attempt to comply with the spirit of the policy and be less conditionaL C. Statement of ?resent Problem

5. It is necessary to understandhow four-year college Four-year collegeS should be required to set aside faculty perceive community college &culty andstudents enough places in thejunior class to guarrntee accept- and what activities have promoted inter-faculty ance of conununity college transfers. collaboration. C. Recommended Adtien D. Methodology In studying this problem data were assembled from a It is recommended that the Chancellor appoint a Uni- University-wide coordinating hOdy torrosed_ of campus series of interviews With taculqr and staff at selected administrators, courislers and faculty as well as cen- versitycollege campuses This study waseonducted under tral staff to examine the 1980 SUNY Board of Thrstees the auspices of the Office of Academic Programs, Policy Policy to determinehow it can best be Strengthened. This and Planning. coordinating tody thotild inveStisate the impact of changes in thiapolicy on students and on SUNY institutions. This E. Findings committee should review: (1) fiscal and Other intentives which could be offered te receivingeolleges which would The attitade of four-year college faculty toward com- enhance the value of transfere to receiving colleges(2). munity colleges varied in relation to the four-year main; changing the language in theeurrent Polk* froth "When pus's experience with transfer. Typital of one extreme accepted in parallel Pregrartie_te "Will be accepted in par- waS the campus that had assimilated large numbers of allel provains," ensuring availability and access of par- transfers over many years In this instance transfer Stir= allel programs to community collegesraduates;_(3) a dual denta were not perceived as differing from native stu- transfer policy preserVina the generietransfer for A.A. denta and it6:4 relations with faculty at feeder institutions and A.S. graduates, but adding a course-by-course trans- have evolved over the years; At the otherextreme was fer policy for IULS. degree graduates; (4) means wherft the rare campuawhere facultY regarded their institu- receiving colleges can clearlyproMulgate and support the tion as highlY Seleetive and viewed transfers as signific- appeal process centained in the current policy; antly less qualified than native students. In thatcase, Lastly, the 1980 policy calls for annual reporting bY the faculty were reluctant to support recruitment of trans= receiving colleges on the adminittratien and academic fers and had little or no contact with community college procedures in effect Which ensure implementadon of the Far more commonlyi four-year campuses reported policy. This has not been complied with by receiving hid: improved faculty attitirdes in response to increased con- tutions accordingto SUM' Matt The UniVertiqr=wide tS3-01 fac- dinating body called for in this recommendation should Mkt With COmmunity college transfer students and review this area of the policy and determine whetherthis ulty. These campuses had made a commitment to section of the policyshould be repealed or liohether the increased transfer recktritment. As transfer enrollments reporting of such infortiatien is facilitative to the imple- reSe, _frittitUtional research turd farulty interaction with transfers generated a new _image of the quality Of the Coin; mentation of the policy. munity college experience Mandela were seen as mature .ateresting comparablein performance to native students A. ISSue = Fostering Colieglal Relationships Between_Two-Year and and more likely to persist in their studies and complete the degree. _ Four-Year College FacultY The following approaches have been employed to nur- ture collegial relatiowhips between two-year andfour; B. Background year college faculty: Recentnational studies on transfer students identify inter-inStitratiOrial facrilV cooperation as the key ingredi- -Luncheons or receptions at the four-year campus ent in successful articulation. Recent activitier inSUNY that bring together faculty in the same discipline

17 123 Vllts by fcour-year college faculty to two-year college campuaes for meetings with their departmental counterparts -Hiring community college faculty as adjunct faculty members at the four-year campus -Guest lecturers and colloquia preserded by visiting faculty -Faculty e.xchanage: two acuity members exchange course; each teaching at the other's institution -Regular meetings at the departmental or program level to discuss issues Mated to articulation, e.g., curriculum changes, course content, prerequisites -Reimbursement to faculty actravel to twl-year colleges D. Recommended Action lb foster &sense of equal partnership between two-year and four-year faculty, it is recommended that the Chancellor charge the Faculty Council of Community Colleges and the University Faculty Sen. atworking tosetherr_to develop apart and structure for regional consortia of faculty exchange programs. Upon approval of this plan, SUNY should provide resources to support collaborative sigh:Ind and inter-campus initiatives in faculty exchange;

18 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

TO THE CHANCELLOR TO SUNY ADMINISTRATION 1. Ms recommendW that the Chancellor amoint 1. SUNY administration needS to develop aninforma- body composed tion syttem to adequarely collect data on commu- a University-wide coordinating nit, college transfers prior to and afterentering of campus achrdnistrators,counselors and fac- . ultras_wellaacentral Staff to examine the 1980 baccalaureate programs, including: SUNY Soard of Thistees Policy to determine how it can best be strengthened This coordinating a. body should investigate the impact of changes Infonnation concerning the status of transfers as they in thiatiolicy on students and on SUNY institu- begin upperidivision Work, &ending college, cred- dons. This committee should review: (I) fiscal its attained, credits accepted, pre-transfermajor; etc. and other incentives which could I* offerad to receivin4 colleget Which would enhance the b. value of transfers to the receiving college; (2) Information to monitor admission to programs atfour- changing the language in the current policy from year colleges where itappearsnand= are not readily "when acceptiid in paralletprograms" to "wttl be accepted into a parallel program; and accimUtd in p-arallel programs" ensuring availability and access of parallel programs to com- c. munity college graduateS; (3) a dual transfer Systematic feedback to community colleges onthe PolicY preserving the generic transfer for A.4L progreSt of their transfer graduates, as well as corn- parisun to native students, toward thebaccalaureate and A.S. graduates, but addhig a course-by- is course equivalency litting for A.A.S. degreegrad- degree. The need for such an information system uates; (4) means whereby receiving colleges can urgent and long overdue. clearly promulgate and support the appeal process contained in the current policy. 2. It is reconunended that SUNY administrationmist and facilitate the development of personal support aervices, timely and accurate entrance processes,clear 2. 'lb foster a sense of equal partnership between two- and timely communication.* and greater financial sup- year and four-year faculty, it is recommendedthat the port for transfer students at each of itsreceiving col, Chancellor charge the Faculty Council of the Gozn- leges. At minimum, each receiving SUNY vole*Should munity CollegiTs and the University Faculty Senate, have a transfer person/office in addition to a trans- woridng together, to develop a planand structure fer articulation perton/office to overseethe support for regional consortia of faculty exchange programs. terVice area and to develop institutional receptiv- Upon approval of this plan, SUNY should provide ity to the transfer student. resources to support collaborativeregional and inter- campus initiatives in faculty exchange. 3. It is rcommended that SUNY administrationissue to campus presidents suggested guidiAinesfor the content, usage, interpretation, annual reviewand pub- licity of articulation agreements. SUNY shouldformally consult with the presidents, academic vice presidents,_Faculty Senate, and Faculty Council for suggested guidelines. TO_OFFICE OF THE VICE CHANCELLOR TO OFFICE OF COMMUNITY COLLEGES FOR_ ACADEMIC PROGRAM; POLICY AND PLANNING 1. SUNY Community College Office Should form an advisory committee of community college institutional offi- 1. It is recommended that the Office of the Vice Clum- cers, central staff and others to plan and implement cellor for Academic Pregrvms, Policy and Plan- a system-wide follow-up study of community college ning, working with the Office of Community graduates beginning with the 1987 graduallzs and Colleges, coordinate efforts to alleviate progmrn continuing such research on an on-goingbasis. The deficiencies and transfer obstacles. There should follow-up studies should be sponsored by SUNY with be established a UniversiV-wide committee, required participation by each community college in appointed by the Chancellor; which antoncother the system. The implementation of this recommen- things would have the responsibility for monit- dation is essential for establishing a state-wide pm.- oring the problems connected with the provi- gram of full accountability for the graduates of sion of transfer opportunities. The committee community colleges. should identity and promote innovative models of cooperation that enhance tranSfer opportuni- 2; SUNY Community College Office should identify arid ties within the SuNY system. It is further recom- promulgate models ofadvisement and preparation for mended that receiving campuses consider the transfer within the thirty community colleges. Com- immediate implementation of the suggestions munity colleges should ensure thnely,accurate and throughout this summary which requi.re little or accessible information systems for their students. no policy revision or resource reallocation. Careful consideration should be given by colleges to offering low enrollment courses where such courMed have been listed as part ofa degree program and students have expectations of enrollment and transfer.

126 20 CHAPTER III ACADEMIC AND GENERAL PROGRAMMATIC ISSUES

OVERVIEW Issue The charge to the committee on Academic and Gen- There is a need to substantially increase the resources eralProgrammatic Issues was in many ways similar to the that are typically made available in order to improve the hat line ofjob descriptions which state "and other duties quality of academic programs, student development, and as amigned." That innocuous phrase could be reworded related administrative services at SUNY community to refer to this committee as the one designated to colleges. addresS other Lasues and concerns of community colleges that were not discussed in the Independent Commis- A. Sub - Issue I.a. Support for Planning sion Report For that matter the concerns that this com- and Program/Service Development mittee has addressed were given little attention in most studies completed on the STJNY communiV colleges dur- B. Background ing the past twenty years. Two previous reports expressed concern that ways ought to be foundie assure con- Fundingfor community colleges is directly depend- sistent qualitr throughout the thirty SUNY community ent upon FTE enrollment which is declining and projec- college& but no specific recommendations to this end were ted to continue to decline in most community collqies offered. This committee has considered the barriers that for the remaining years of this decade. These funding lev- seem to exist which hamper community colleges in their els relate directly to the quality of programs and serv- search for excellence in arademic programs, student ices which can be provided to full and_part-time credit development programs, and related administrative man- students and the myriad part-tizn% non-credit student agement service& Among such barriers are: insufficient regiatrations that are recorded at the thirty SUNYtorn- information for planning and decision-making; underut- munity colleges, annually lb improve the quality of pro-. ilized teclmologicalinnavation in college programs; inad- grams and services, the SUNY community colleges are equate technological drilla among faculty and staff in terms required to seelt new ways to enrich or improve them- of content areas taught and the teols that can enhance selves outside of existing funding sources (State aid, stu- instruction; lack of adequate student recruitment reten- dent tuition and fees and sponsor contribution/ tion, and trander articulation information; and limited chargebacks). Federal programs, which have been an technological implementation in adntinistrative offices important source of fundS to some colleges in the rast, resulting in ineliciency of institutional operations and are being reduced for program development and improve- services to students. ment in higher education. In its consideration of these barriers and possible solu- Current funding levels tend to support existing sala- tions to them, the committee reviewed the previous ries and increasing casts related W utilities, capital eQuip- reports on SUNY community colleges, surveyed a num- ment, maintenance of buildingsand equipment supplies, ber of national studies,and considered studies of other and other standard operation& Little money La left after higher education systems. It reviewed the work of other these expenditures to enrich or improve the quality of SUNY study committees and independent research stud- programs and services, or even to complete the studies ies including a recent one on affirmative action in the corn- necessary to understand what changes are needed to munity college, and the Reportoftke Mk Force on update curricula, automate services, andprovide pro- Improving the Quality qrStudentLife (1980 In order grams and services needed by new student populations. to gather information and perspectives from a wider sam- The dilemma becomes worse for those community col- ple of students, favulty and staff, the committee called a leges which have expanded their institutional research "lbwn Meeting" which_ took place at Broome Commu- and planning capacity and hence increased their under- nity College on March 21 1986. The committee shared its standing of their long-term needs, at a time when local preliminary findings and observations with those who sponsor support is reaching the limits of groWth and fed; attended this session, inviting questions and comment?. eral sources of revenues are decreasing. The challenge Findings were analyzed and synthesized in four com- is to ensure enhancement of existing program quality while mittee meetings and three Task Force meetings, result- satisfying local needs in a climate increasingly less hos- ing in the discussion and recommendations that follow. pitable to expansion.

21 127 C. Statement of Present PrOblem affirmative action, institutional research, and long- range and strategic planning. The long-term and immediate needs of the thirty community colleges are as varied as the colleges themselves. Ways need to be found to provide resdurces to improve SUNY should take an_active role in seeking ways to programs and services In a full range of areas which meet encourage the identification and sharing, on a individual Institutional needs. regional basis, of program information and needs. Focus would include: the development of new pro- D. Methcido1ogy grams to meet reglonal needs; the participation of students, faculty and administrators in regional con- The special purpose funds now available through ferencesand workshops; and involvemcat with other SUNY, from other New York State sources, and from the SUNY colleges, university centersand New York des- federal government were reviewed, along with a recent ignated Centers for Excellence. Such Workihopa Could compilation of external flindingacquired by each of the promote resource sharing joint grant propoaal writ- SUNYcommunity colleges and the purposes to which ing, and the provision of new and expandingaca- these funds are being put. demic programs on a shared-cost basit. E. Findingi A. Sub Istue 1.b. Information for Decision=Making Title III of the Higher Education Act of 1965, specifically the Institutional Aid Program, was investigatzhd. If B. Background a similar State funded format were adopted for useln New York State, it could accommddate a very large variety At the present time, erwh community college collecti of programs designed by individual colleges to improve information about its own graduates on individually devel- and strengthen their programs and services. In order to ouied survey instrumentt. Collection of information about be eligible for such funds, colleges would be required to graduates' success in transfer institutions and in their have _developed a long-range institutional plan, and funds careers is might in a varietyof ways and at different could be made available to facilitate planned program times by different colleget. The result is that there isno development gstablishing some relationship between statewide, annual, compirable information available for individual planathat are submitted for funding and objec- all community colleges with regard to placement and trans- tivet of the SUNY Multi-Phase Rolling Plan might beone fer otgraduated. As a system we have no idea how well a the appropriate funding considerations. our graduates perform in taccalaureate inetitutiont or on the joboior can we compare ourselves with the experiences of our sister institutions in these regards. The avail- F. Recommended Action ability of these data is crucial to our underStanding of who we are as a system and how well eszti ofus is doing in meeting our students' needs. SUNY Ohould seek from the State a sum of $5,000,000 Each campus need.agdod institutional data to improve in the first year for the establishment of a Program decision-making External agencies, including SUNY and and Services Quality Improvement Fund to support the Middle States Association, encourage themeasure- necessazyquality improvements to programs at the ment of educational outcomes, a process in which no thirty SUNY community colleges. These funds should one is expert A variety of governmental agencieS requeSt be distributed to colleges through a competitive grant increasingly refined institutional data annually for oper- programmodeled after the Department of Education's ational and capital_planning purposes. Title III Inttitutional Aid Program which addresses The development of a common data basefor SUNY ineti= a wide range of institutional program and service tutions generally, and for the community collegesspe- development innovations within the context of each cifically, has made some strides. The Student Data File, community college'e long-range plan. The end result if enhanced and fully subscrihedtcould provide much would be that the monies allocated and awarded of theinformation colleges need about the transfersuc- would address the highest priorities of each of the col- cess of their graduates (and non-graduates) atleast within leges seeking funds. State University. The Community College Office in SUNY provides compilations of collective bargainhigcontract b. clauses across the thirty colleges, and administrative sal- SUNY ought to seek funds to support the expansion ary data. Individual colleges undertake Otudieaof par- of central servicES to the community colleges based ticular programs or services from time to time. The SUNY on the needs of the colleges. Increased training and Office of Institutional Research provides compilations consulting with groups of colleges and with indi- and summaries of conununity college informationcon- vidual campuses might include assistance with: cerning enrollment employment, and some student data institutional advancement, economic development, and trend information. The need for systematic, complete

22 128 and comparable information at the campus and "sys- tive inquiry in community tem" levels, for internal andexternal purposes, isvery college classrooms aS etri; great and rapidly growing. denced by the prevalence ofthe objective testi and the perception of increased relianceon adjunct personneL C. Statement of PreSent Problem Since their inception,community colleges have vacil- lated between the secondaryschool and the university No central sourceof comprehensive mOdda of professionalism. Thefirst haS been abandoned; information is pres- the second, While alluring ently available to SUNYcommunity colleges, nor is there to many ibrulty member&may a method currently in place to be equally inappropriate. Aprofessionalism that is ensure the development ized around academic organ- andprovision of information neededby the community disciplines may not meetthe colleges in the future. diverse needb of community students. college faculty, Stag and D. Methcklology A new kind of professionalism,toward which several community colleges have infilet been moving, might The committee revieWed the involve a reconceptualizationof the academic disciplines information presently to meet the needs and realities aVailable and the potential ofthe long-mandated but only of community collegecon- partially implemented StudentData File. stituenciet, the integration ofliberal and carer education, a focus on instructionalmedia and teaching meth; E. Findings odologies, and the presentationof information beyond the classroom in colloqui& lectures, so forth. workshop& recitals, and Some communiqr colleges believethat they holt the equipment necessary to goon the Student Data File; oth- C. Statement of the ers cheoge not toparticipate. Twelvecommunity col- Present Probleiti leges report to SUNYon the system. If all thirty colleges participated in the sybikaa, There is need fbr a VStemof rewards and incentives extremely uSeful studies could that encourage and sustain 1:ve_prmated from the data tosupport decision4nakingand profesSionaliam over thespan provide better outcomes of a teachinig career anda strategy for identifying and informatiort However, all infor- raising the resources mation useful to communi4rcolleges in planning and necessary for professional develop= decision-making is not student data; ment activities. The alternative,in an era of contrac- other sources of cen- tion, is an aging faculty, trally collected and analyzedinformation are neededas there-singly prone to pSychic welL retirement faculV/staff burnout,and the pursuit of diver; sions from professionalactivitiet. At its best, SUNY offers R RecommendedAdtion its faculty a lifetime ofcareer vitality and challenge with rewards, honors, and incentivesaccumulating as retire ment nears. This is not the SUNY should establisha network of informationman- case in SUN? community agement data collection and colleges where the brightestand thebett, the most dissemination among thecom- getic and the most ambitious, ener- munity college& Sucha network would result in shared are too often forced to con- data on program evaluation, sider admirtistmtivecareers in order to achieve stature outcomea studies, profes- and recognition. sional development studies,affirmative action, library automation, institutional advancement student life, stu; D. Methodology dent developmentprofessional life, community tion, placement, educa- program costs, and many others. An The committee reviewed advisory conunitte& compoSedof commtutity collwepres- reports of discussiont among idents, deans and research members of the State UnivenityFaculty Council of Com- directors Should beestablished. munity Colleges as well This committee shouldmeet regularly with SUNYcen= as discussions with faculty. tral staff to identify whichdata elements and related E. Findings reports would provide thegreatett value to the colleges on an annual basis. Insufficient attention hasbeen given to providing A. Sub=Issue 1.cProfessional flevelopment fewards and incentiVesto faculty in order toencourage their active professionaldeveloment. Remedy of this B. Background praxtice would precipitate thedevelopment of new and improved learnins enVironmentsfor the student popu; Many conditionsseem to threaten the quality of 'idiom§ enrolled in the thirtycommunity colleges. fessional life and the missions pro- of the community colleges. F. Recommended Action These include:an aging faculty; an absenceor near absence of new personnel inmany academic departments; a perception that program development a. and proftsional The UniversiV should growth funds are diminishing;a decline in serious cogni- establish graduateprograms related to communitycolleges that are regionally

23 129 accessible to community college faculty, stalfand oth- minorities to prognuns that offer the greatest opportuni- ers interested in working in a community college. tWs for economic and sociaLmobility, principidly science and technology programs. SUNY's community colleges b. should be on the cutting edge of this effort An endowed chair for distinguished community college fncultyshould be created to support distin- C. Stztement of PreSent Problent guished professors-in-residence on campus, offering workshops and mini-courses that exempli& state-of= Colle-ges need to re-emphasize their traditional flext; the-art curriculum development and tewhing biliV in new prtigrarti deVelOpment and inresponse to methodologiet. new student populations. Prefrent Modet of operation are not working well enouglt C. A comm unity college research center oughtto be D. Methodology established which would support research fellowships for community college facuW The tommittee diStiriSed this issue with_SUNYcen- tral administrative staff and community college students. SUNYshould sponsor a conference(s) with thesup- E. Findings port of the Faculty Council of Community Colleges, the Association of Presidents of Public Community Better and faster ways to respond to the needs of Colleges, die Association of Conununity College Trus- women and minority populationsand of other groups seek- tees and any other group of interested community col- ing college services need to be developed. Betterpro- lege professionals, devoted to the advancement of grams are needed to attrazt and retain minority student& the concept of professionalism in SUNY community colleges. F. Irccommended Action A. Sub-Issue I.d Responsiveness B. Background SUNY should provide seed money for campus-baSed projects which Will recruit and provide intensive skill Changing external conditions and organizational fea- development for women and minoritis in science and tures since the 1970's, changing public policy emphases technology programs and promote successfultrans= on community college education; a greater emphasis on fer to upper division colleges and university centers. fimding of special programs; efforts to limit the institutional mission; aging programs, equipment and stall; and concerns about the quality and value of the associate degreeall have tendedto modify the perception of the community colleges as the dynamic, responsive and comprehensive sector of SUNY. On the other hand, in terms of program development, communiW colleges have long been SUNY's innovators. The impetus fbr new curriculum development is almost entirelylocal as the colleges attempt to respondto the needs of students for career programs that promise good jobs and transfer provams that articulate directly wkth four-year institutions in the service region or State. The approval process of new programs is lengthy andcum- bersome. Yet, it usufkliv works for programs which do not require a quick response time to meet a community need. New populations require changes in the traditional college environment, including appropriate andnew sets of services. When one talks of community collegepopu- lations, non-traditional and minority students, among others, come to mind, and each poses special educational challenges. While coramuniV collwges have ditcovered inventive and effective ways to retrain and mainstream adult students, they have bftn _less successfiri in meeting the needs of minorities. Perhaps the greatest challenge facing community colleges is findingways to attract

24 1 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

TO THE CHANCELLOR TO SUM' ADMINISTRATION 1; SUNY should seek from the State a sum of_$5,000,000 1. SUNY ought to seek funds to support the expansion in the first year for the establishment of a Program of central sertrices tb the community colleges based and Services Qualiw Improvement Fund ti3 support nec- on the needs of the colleges. Increased training and essary quality improvements to programs at the thirty consulting with groups of colleges and with individ- SUNY community colleges-These funds shotild be diS- ual campuses might include assistance_with: tributed tb colleges thrbugh a competitive grantpro- institutional advancement, economic development, gram modeled after the Department of Education's Tide affirmative action; institutional research; and long- HI Institutional Aid Prograo, which addresses a wide range and strategic planning range of institUtional program and service development innovations within the context of each community 2. SUNY should take an active role in seeking ways to college'siong-mnge plart_ The endresult would be that encourage the identification and sharing on a regional the monies allocated and awarded would addreAS the baSit, of program information and needs. Focus would highest priorities of each of the colleges seeking funds; include: the development of new programs to meet regional needs; the participation of students, fac- 2. The University should establish graduate programs ulty and administiators in regional conferences and related to community colleges that are regionally workshops; and involvement with other SUNY col- accessible to community college faculty; staff and oth- leges, university centersand New York designated ers interested in working in a community college. Centers for Excellence. Such workshops could promote resource sharing joint grant proposal writing, 3. An endowed chair for distinguished community col- and the provision of new and expanding academic lege faculty should be created to suppott distinguished programs on a shared-cost baSiS. professors-in-residence on campus, offering workshops and mini-courses that exemplify state-of-the-art 3. SUNY should establish a network of information man- curriculum development and teaching methodologies agement data collection and diSsemination among the community colleges. Such a network would result 4. A community college research center ought to be in shared data on program evaluation, outcomes stud- established which would support researth fellowships ies, professional development studies, affirmative for community college aculty. action, library automation, institutional advancement, student life, student developmeM professional lie, 5. SUNY should provide seed money for campus-based community education, placement, program costs, and projects which will recruit andprovide intensive skill many others. An advisory comntittee, composed of development for women and minorities in science community college presidents, deans and research and technology programs and promote successful &rectors should be established. This conunittee transfer to upper division colleges and university should meet regulady viith SUN? central staff to iden- centPrs. tify which data elements and related reports would provide the greatest value to the colleges on an annual

4. SUNY should sponsor a conference(s) with_the support of the Faculty Council of Community Colleges, the Association of Presidents of Public Community Colleges, the Association of Community College Mos- tees and any other group of interested community college professionals, devoted to the advancement of the concept of professionalism in SUNY community colleges. CHAPTER IV FUNDING

OVERVI2W in New York is a co tment_by State government The issue of appropriate ftmding to the continuationof its effortat the very least, with levelafor SUNY com- respect to financial support forhighereducation, munity colleges has been tr ated in allof thereports pre- in its relaticgt to other State budgetexpenditure& ceding alit one, includingthe WellsReport (1964); the The preservation of quality altorequires an under- Nelson Report (1969); the InglerReport(1969); the Report standing on thepart of thegovernor and legisla- of the Task Force on Problems inthe Commurdty_Col- ture, as well as the public, of whycosts generally leget (1973); the KeppetReport (1973);the Tad( Forte do ncO itcreaSe when enrollmentdeclines." on Community_ Colleget Report(1973); the WalesReport (1976); the Wessell Report( 1977); This conclusion, taken from the 1986report sponsored the Rensselaerville by the Association of Colleges Report (1982); and the IndependentCommitsion Report and Universities of the State (1985). of NeW York (ACUSNY), entitledQuality inIrgther A summary tabulation of the Education: A Yiewfrom the PresidentbOffice(1986115 major Conclusions of these central to the work of the pretent reports (compiled by Freda R H. Martens)it cited in the committee. We have Selected Bibliography section ofthis Report In many arrived at a time at which theState of New York has not respects, some of the same major issues which kept up with the financialcommitment it has made to were the hundreds of thousandt of clearly identified in the tenreports listed aliove and com- atudents educated in the pleted during the past twenty-twoyears are still with community colleges. While studentand lotal sponsor u& We are still denting several Possible fiutding shares have increatedover time, that of the State of NEW formu- York has not proportichately kept las; the relative weight of student?,spontors', and State's vp with inflation, pre- shares; the disparate cost ofvariousprograms, and the senting a real danger to the qualityof education offerech existence of chargeback problems,among other& This Neverthelets, the State wishes the collegesto be respon; present Report is not an attemptto Solve the questioncf sive to community and Stateneeds. adequate funding for communitycolleges for all time. It is healthy thatthisquestion be studied periodically,ht D. Methodology order to ascertain if anything hatchanged to prompt a more appropriate solutiore The Committee hat ftmctionedby summarizing the major findings of all previoutreports on SUNY Commu- A. IssueTheTunding Formula and nity Colleges; discussing and selectingthe issues that RelatNI Sub-Issues would be addretied in thisreport; gathering state by Stiite data on appropriations andon funding formulae; and com- B. Baaground paring and analyzing the keyrelevant data. The Conunittee spent &great dealof time on compari= While the State University of NeNYork has released sons among state& M.M. Chambers annuallycompares a topicaLpaper on the evolution of the NewYork State the states on seven sets of data(Chambers and Hines, funding formula for communitycolleges, a graphic sum- 1985). Thete teven comparisonsare selected from among mary of how it hat changed over thepast thirty-six years some twen4r-siX dimentions on_whichcomparisons may is presented in Appendix A. be made (Halsterut 1974,pk 519), but these sevenhave become andard annual expectationsin the field of higher C. Statement of PreSiAttProblem education due to Dr Chambers' work In gathering this information, theCommittee learned "Colleges and Universities aresubStatitiallyinflu- that a number of states are ina similar situation, study- enced by the nature arid effectivenessof the policy ing the_possibility of formula change&The most siifi= Making and planningdone at theState leVel and, cant state report in recant month§ is thatof California more importantly,by the extent of statefinancial sup- (Corrunissionlor the Review of the MatterPlan for Higher port Indeed the State's financial roleis ratiWitia in Education, I986). importance as the federal government's role dimin- It should be noted that While theworkof this Usk Force ilhet Therefore, a necessary conditionfor prectehr= has been proceed.Mg, a somewhat ing and improving the qualityOfhigher educntion parallel effort focused mostly on funding andgovernance has been taking plade

26 132 through the work of New York State Senator Kenneth update the 1982 chartproduced by the Education Com- La Valle's Higher Education Committee, and work on a pact of the States and the National Association_of Col- review of communi4f college funding has been conduc- lege and University Business Officers (NACUBO, 1983) ted by Assemblyman Arthur Kremer's Ways and Means which delved in detail into the various formulae. Committee. They have been looking at the current formula and studying alternatives for State financial sur,ort E. Finelifigs The bulk of this 'Mk Force committee's work, however,- involved the number oneconcern of the For 1985-86, New York State's ranking on the seven committeethe flint:ling formula and related issues. The critical measures of appropriations annually collected by committee started off with mventeen Issues, but quickly the higher education community appear on the follow- narrowed the list down to the issues presented in this ing table: report It has collected data from each state in order to

Seven_Critleal Measures of State Appropriations to Higher Education for the 1985-86 College Year

Mexemtre New York State National Average New York Rank

1985-86 appropriations $2,545,546,000 $614,944,580/state 2 Appropriations per $143.74 $131.50 15 evita Appropriations per 10.02 10.22 31 $1,000 of peronaI incom - TWo-year change 17% 19% 26 (1983-84 to 1985436)

Thn-year change 103% 140% 44 . (1975-76 to 1985-86)

Two-year change 9% 10% 26 (less inGation)

Thn-year change 1% 19% 44 (less inflation)

Despite a doubling_of appropriations for higher educa- Revenue Increases (Decreases) tion'in New York State, during the past ten years when January, 1971 to December,_1985 the effects of inflation are considered, the actual increase after inflation (HEPI) is removed it just one percent! New York State actual data show that for the period of % Change the 1971-72 college year to 1985-86, after inflation is 1971-72 to 1984-85 temoved, lissW on the Nigher Education Price Index,_(similar to the Consumer Price Index, but more appropriate Net cost/VIZ (4.4)% to higher education expenditures)the following percent- Student Revenue/FITE 0.1 % ages of increase or decrease per FTE remain: State Aid/FITE (9.3)% Sponsor Shate/FTE (2.9)% Skonsors, Contribution/FTE (1.5)% Chargebacks/FTE (11.6)% Fund Balance and other/FTE 149.2 %

27 In trying to compare statistics nationally on commu- Thition Incorrie tier FTE1981-82* nity colleges,_what we have been able to glean, notably from the study of Professor James Wattenbarger, indi- _Averagerergent-Plie_ cates duit in FfE expendItuze New York ranked 6th high- ireglOn 1981-82 of Total Operating Costa estfor the forty-six States for which there were data in 1984 (it had been 5th two years earlier). At least thir- New York 3895 29.7 East 732 26.0 teen other States had increasestigher than New Yorles Central 783 23.0 in the two-year period. (Watteribarger and Mercer, 1985) South 447 18.0 AS noted in Appendix Bove have uaed historical datz4 Vilst 139 8.0 which traces revenue sources per FTE from 1970-71 National 449 16.0 Actual to 1986-87 Preliminary Esdmatea, to point the way 'Tata used in this and succeeding tabift are for 188142 because, whilawa toward Several noatible areas of continuing interest. have more recent data for New York State, there are no complem dam far later years for national comparliona

Thition In the area of tuition, natiorwide it is far less expen- The percentage, of course, varies from college to col- sive to attend a public two-year than it is to attend a pub- lege. For New York State's thirty SUNY community col- lic_ four-year college, a private tivo-year college, or a leges in 1985:.86, the approved full=time resident tuition private four=year college, as the chart below show& ranged from $950 to $1350, with an average of $1237. For 1984-85, the last year for which we have actual %urea, the percentage of total operating costs covered by tuition varied from 20.5 to 41.0, cith a State-wide average Thition and Fezi Coati in POStWcondary Inst.tutions of 30.0 percent 1965, 1975; 1985

1965 1975 1985 Private FourYear $1,297 $2,614 $5,418 Private State Support Two-Year 702 1,367 3,206 When we turn to the broader picture of where supiiort for SUNY's conununityeolleges comes from, the find- Public ings are similarNew York State provides lower percent= Four-Year 298 599 1,278 ages of support than elsewhere, and local sponsors a higher percentage; when local revenue from all sources Public Two-Year 99 277 647 is included. smote amicanautociation of Comununity and Junior Colleges, and National Center for Eduattion Statistics State Support per FM-1981-1982 However students in New York_State pay significantly more, on the average, (or their higher eddeation in itt State Support Average Peireenttge COMmunity tollegeS than students in other parts of this Region Per FTE of Ibtal Operating Costs region and they pay higher tuition than students in the New York $ 991 32.9 other three regions of_the _nation. East 1097 39.0 It Slibiild be fitited that NeW York State provides signif- Cenrral 1341 39.0 icantly more aid per student for Anancial assistance than South 1833 67.0 my other state in_the nation. Of the_$1,292,314,04X) in stu- West 1562 60.0 dent firiaritial aatittande dittributed nationwide in 1985- National 1505 53.0 86, New York State provided $382,250,000, or 294per- cent (National Association of State Scholarshipand Grant Programs, 1986). During the past four years (1981-82 to 1984-85) New York State provided between $193;21 and New York State supportper FIT waS $1279 in 19&4=85 $252;07 per FM student in financial assistance to SUNY and was budgeted at $1463 for 1985-86, including con- community college students;_ even atter this is actored tract course aid. If figures were provided for post-audits, in, hOwever, the findings that New York State students it is estimated that New York State would lose another pay more is still confirmed; percentage point.

28 1 3 4 Lo-cal Support The East led all regions hi 19S2-33 in the number of states without a funding formula. Unit rate formulae are Local Support (Sponsor's Contribution) per FTE- mostprevalent in the South and West, and the Central 1981-82 region has the tighest percentage of cost-based formulae. Y.t should be noted, of course, that states vary in what

LocatSupport AveragaPereennute__ . they will support, leadinl to wide variations in lctal prac- Region Per FTE of Thal Operating Costs tice among the community colleges from state-to-state. New York $ 653 21.7 F. Recommended Action East 697 30.0 Central 1023 30.0 South 192 7.0 The Task Forte discussed several possiblealterna- We3t 573 15.0 tives to the present funding formula for SUNY commu- National 584 21.0 nity colleges, each of which is costed out in Appendices C-1 to C-6. Appendix C-1 shows the Fit calculations of New York'slocal support per FTE increased to $906 the current 30-credit hour FTE calculation and an alter- for 1984-1985 actual, and to $985 budgeted for 1985-86. nate 24-ezedit hour FTE calculation. Appendices C-2 and The figures above represent real sponsor dollars expen- C-fi show the current formula calculations, as approved ded, and do not include chargeback revenues, fund bal- in the 1985-86 final State operating budget, so that there ances, or other lotal income. If these were included, the is a baseline for comRarison. Ibtal net operating costs local share shown would be even greater, but they are for the thirty community colleges for 1985-86 are $506.2 excluded to make the figures comparable to the national million, with the State providing $180.6 million, or 35.7 figures indicated. . percent excluding contract course aid. The Illsk Force recommends the adoption of Option One as presented in Appendix 0-4. It provides for a simple change in the wording of the aid formula to read that co 'Rota Revenues teges wozthi receive "the greater cif" instead elks teseer The map on the following page demonstrates the rela- or the two, 40 percent of net operating costs or the base tive sources of community college revenues. aid formula rates. It is recognized that there may have to be added provisos: a possible "cap" established and Revenue as a whole, including gifts, grants, contracts, phased-ht by the State University of New York and WSW. and other was as follows: ances that the sponsor and et:Went dollar shares will not diminish. aased on 1985-86 final budgets,the net cost Ibtal Revenue and Expenditures per FTE-1981-82 to the State of New York for this change would be $35,339,731, if there is no "cap." Region Revenues Expenditures Option Two, shown in Appendix C-5,would have the student credit hours dividee, by twenty-four instead of New York $3030 33011 thirty as at present The rabonale behind this change is Rast 2803 2803 that each college defines r. ibll-time student as one who Central 34-85 3409 carries at least twelve credits in a semestkr; to divide the South 2737 2739 West 2825 2583 total number of credits by thirty; therefore, is somewhat National 2351 2821 anomalous since it clearly underrepresents the colleges' real cost per student, especially the costs for rert-time _New York State cost per FTE increased to expenses students (the counseling registration, billing and other of $3927 for 1984-85 actual, and to $4306 budgeted for costs are at least equal to the costs for full-time stu- 1985-86. dents, and in some instances may he even greater). aased on 1985-86 final budgets, the netcost_to the State of New York for this change would be $24,974,665. During_the course of the Committee's work Senator Wil- Funding Formulae liam T Smith proposed that the State take over a larger share of the commurity colleges' cost minus tuition. The Finally, with regard to ftmding formulae, there are four cost of this_proposal may be seen in Appendix C-6 to basic types in use in the various states of the nation. be between $139,511,880 and $171,942,815 depending uporuthe assumptions made for student tuition reve- In 1982-83: nue. For instance,the lower cost figure is baKid on the 22 states used unit rate formulae assumption that student tuition revenue is maximized 15 states had no funding formula, but negotiated for all_thirty community colleges at $1350 per ftill-time the total and $57 per credit hour for part-time students, regard= 8 states had cost-based fbrmulae less of net operating cost limits. Since State assistance 1 state had a minimum-foundation level of support would increase to Letween $320,077,064 and

29 1 3 5 1505

REVENUES FOR

COMMUNITY

584 COLLEGE SUPPORT

ioza c... , it NEW YORK

%_ sk, flei

!7,111,19,i

wt.\ MIDWEST .., 1 1 EAST

KEY

TUITION INCOME a STATE SUPPORT E3 137 136 LOCAL SUPPORT 19a

SOUTH . $352,507,999 under this proposal, (depending on the tui- don assumptions)-, it is interesting to compare the cost to what it would I* if New York StaM provided State aid at the same rate as the average state does to community colleges across the nation; that figure would be $331.6 million, a figure yen, close to aenator Smith's_proposal. The following table summarizes the costs of the four options to the present itinding formula discussed in this Itep-ort and detailed in 49endix C. These figures are based on a total net operating budget for all SUNY conununity colleges of $506.2 million in 1985-86: Ibtal State Operating Aid Payable

Current forznula $180,565,184 The "greater of" 40 percent $215,904,913 or tM kerne& INvidhazgatudent_credlt boars $205,539,849 by 24 intwead of 30 Full State familial $320;017;064 to (dwendIng on student $352,507,999 tuition assampdon)

In conclusion, as indicated at the beginning of this__ chapter, reviewing the ftmding mechanism for the SUNY communi4r colleges is a continuing process. There is probably no perfectzolution that addresses the need of each of the thirty SUNY community colleges in the same manner. What has been propozed is what the Task Force feels are the most helpful and feasible alternatives to meet the present fUnding needs of the thirty SUNY com- munitf colleges within a ftmdingftamework that is both fair and reasonable to the State and also meets the afore- mentioned needs of the colleges. The Ts* Force, after reviewing the options outlined abbve, has recommended the adoption of Option One. However, the Task Force recognizes that, like all fimding formulae, this formula, if aftted, must be reviewed and adjusted when necessary on a periodic basi&

31 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

TO 'THE CHANCELLOR

1. It is recommended that the State University vigorously support a changein the present community college fartding formula. The new formula would pmvide for fundinucommunity colleges at a level of thesreater OW percent qf the appmved budget or dye formum The Chancellor should immediately seek to determine whether this proposal has the supwrt of those groups whose endorsement would be critical to its success-Abe Association of Boaids &Trustees of Com- muniW Colleges, the Asteciation of Pretidents of Pub= lk Community Colleges, the Faculty Council of Com- munity Colleges, the Student Assembly, and others he deems appropriate. 2. It is recommended that if the concept of the pro- poied change in the funding formula is adopted, the State University should undertake a detailed impact study to determine d there is a need to eitablish a cap ort the combinedamount of base and supplemental state aid. While the Task Force ditcussed a possible state aid funding cap of 50% of the operating budget itconcluded that more detailed information was needed before any specific cap to the state aid formula could be recommended.

139

32 APPENDIXA

"'OPERATING AIDSUMMARY" 1950 Through 1986-87

SUB UNIVERSITYOF NEW YO Conunuulty Colleges

AitiitieliAr id 1101 11504010171 1171-12 1011111111111117111.31111M1 1172-13 1173.71 1911-15 111111 1171-71 073-71 1171-71 113 111 1173-110 SOH 1/1142 $1) 196243 11144 110145 III) Ill 14541 -11647 Itelest4 stsms0BAsxAID EQuasemm.

fettest 11111W4liep bele 0,333 -040 N/A WA WA NIA WA it WA WA WA WA N/A 11/A PA N/A N/A 01knot 11tI Setn04 toile WA NM 401 EC 401 111 401 401 401 01 401 401 401 401 he el 1141ellsesee Is F11WA II/A 1621 1121 0621 1170 1170 1170 Rh) 111 1110 (11Se 1111105 111 11 in 11-111 Slileet holty 5915 (71 1100 IM NM 115 05 II I% 135 htts IthItu Ike /1 WA 131 135-31 135-10 11/11 17 11 115 ill 123 Ili WI F le 17 17.5 II 04 N/A 11-4 10.5 113 NIA 1111 Yi 111 11 50 ?oust tests NM NM 135 135 OS fre le liftriitls 135 115 135 135 41 WA NM WA WA FIB WA ES FR 11 10-heteel %Wale NIA It 133 135 I% N/A N/A lif EittlIN 9014061 k PM k/A WA WA Ysidisil hymn 1%6 CI AS hpse WA WA WA NIA NIA NIl , WA Ii 11! 11 9As Seem CHOI- NM NIA OS 135 135 135 41104 Is ii Leif 1611 172 Nill Fell 135 135 135 111 Yileetio LII Wells Reel Preettlyle 14 leoeivildp 135 161 135 161 135 111 135 (11 171 Ill AN 115 111 OS III 14 111 131 I's 101- 1inhse- N/A la iSi 110 110 004 Sli--;e1 1121 1% 110 110 110 110 II% 1193 1193 1212 1212 012 1211 1212 for011-0 Al 10111 -Pohl NIA IAA N/A NIA WA 11/A Cis% Fes hOskel *is 401 402 402 501 501 501 501 VI $21 NI

"""siUPPLEMENTALAID EQUALS (3)**"*" 111-110,0 Willed- NM N/A NIA WA II% 151 1150 151 1110 la A 1ideltslArees0 113) 1150 1156 110 1171 1171 1111 4115 105 /les II% II% 1195 111% %het htelle4 NIA NIA 11A NIA WA WA WA I. A toilets fretsh WA NIA 115 175 173 115 02 112 162 112 VII

"*."CONTRACT COURSEAID EQUALS (14)""

re 111 Not NIA WA In WA VA AlA WA 17/A IVA WA N/A N/A 0301965 1930116 07011105 114 11110111e112%112% 11125/130 beilleteti Witte 119170 197041 1971.12 19121.3 1113-14 ILMNITUMSUIMUSIMI 111475 1115-II 1116.11 077.71197e9 11040 %NilMill 110641 198142 111142 Med MelklrelkW) %bill 10341 191145 1104004/ %loll kleilMill %WI /dalMill ielphe F11 %hit him! Fel 11 hi h4 WA11,115.0 0,04.1 14,10,2 13,01.1 Med IR 91,094 10,1131,1 111,541.2 115,310.1 NIA 113.1274 10,918.1 111,1554 60,01.1 11,931.3 11,111.1 10Al 121,05.3 10,044 132,31%5 foli4 01 hie Aii 104,407.3 116,10.7 113,219.1 113,125.0 10,358.1124,00.7 12t152.1 NIA NIA 11,511.3 11,1741 13,14,2 114,01.1 111,744,3 121,511,2131,115.1 112,2794 FII 101,1114 111,10,/ 113,20,1 113,03,0 122,174.1 121,013 WA NIA NM WA N/A 114,311 111,310.4 111,40.2 N/A WA WA 121,111.9 121,1704 132,315,1134,01/0 10414 III - S/7 INN ILA 117A NIA 6.0 0.0 133,119.1 121,1534 NIA 0,10,1 73,30.1 13,111,1 :,311.1 10,1131 WA WA NIA hotel 111 501 lid 90,10.1 10,133,5 11,710 19,124 NIA WA WA VS NIA 10,114./ 0,1411 71,3154 99,51M 16,20.0 14,4014 A/A WI WA NM WA Ned 01 NI hiNVit)11 NM 0,753.2 0,119,3 11,110.1 16,261,2 WA WA IVA 13,5104 11,903.1 11,2111_ WA NA NIA WA 90441 Fit - Nal* hi -VA WA III NIA NIA WA 45,913.1 52,01.9 13A5.5 WA 111 NIA 1in10 f 1 WA NIA N/A huttiehed WA 61,16.0 11,635.1 12,351.9 11,06.1 _WA VA WA 3,161.0 4,374,5 11,111.1 0,014 11,095,211,014,912,3354 held 11/01- lickPreee_ 5,15141,11h06,491 7,306.3 %A79.6 111,01,0 110,520.1 WA 5,193.2 _5,7114 _5,111.7_1,151.0 101,4134 N/A IVA 21,111.0 40,4594 5,09.34,0.0 1,111.0 held FIE Istsemaktes 46,5134 41,119.2 0,034.1 42,151.1 13,512.1 9,121.0 1,216i7,30,1 IVA Ki5 NM 114 0,05.1 1e011 FIE NIA WA NIA 59,229.0 1,371.4 41,211.1 41,024 (oom kit__ VIA WA 0,964./ WA WA WA WI 21,3134 33,365.5 33,121.20,711.135,4214 14 I/A WA N/A NIA 34,09,1 33,435.2 2,10,14,115.1 -(iltmt Ai* N/A N/A 11/4 WI N4 WA 124.1 WA NIA Ali Itcs 133.7 1,1124 hi Opetillee tot) N/A Ail 111 114 WA 1,2694 IPA 11111D011 111191615 1401019 14401110 WA 03.1 595.1 helal tts 0051114 121010912 213159131 241996175 10.6 1 3424 1 10,0 NIA NIA 2059700 111013995 3234%10 WA NIA WA NM 15701620091173 WA 01411 171151 011/211441%011250611124504111% 10131 638852 11496 711111 9043 1731111 er-hl evolelle 1619641 1171961 20110220105 fic I rot list (iv1111111

140 141 APPENDIX A (Continued)

STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK Conuannitl Colleges

Operating Aid Slummy Fanit: History Notes

ID 10 KINN 1111 NA 101441,01106 P til 101 NOUN ITAI RAI NO al SR LIM Mat 1 IV; MO 33,31 ILK RN IL 101441-. CUM (3) MIN I NNW MINIM MN° FILLNIMIIN RI IN INI BOIL itromart110 OM RI Fitts VI LIIq1U 11 IAN 1111101 DWIWNW Ra al NO NI IOW as Ka sum cassamtvidannoss a tans use usAl 101 I NI All RI DE FM II; 232 2111E0 11 N MN PEI FIE; FOI 11 BIEL 12) NO MVO 211-,_A SW OF DE Nit UNITN OK Iling III Nal DI MO if Nel SR ANL W WWI, VLF DEANE NW= UM; VOL , 111 SMR RI A C0011114121 OWN W A Nfilfil PINS OMR MEEN KISS OF ROO NEL It NI 11 V DENIM COM; MIS N 1001311011 IMP DO FM 111110111NMI NEm1Ia 1112142 N 111. MI OIL MIR NaWS 111 11041 IiI7O7I,(101 VIT12011111151 WV OMR 111191141212 M_111/4 110 WV1111111110 71 Ofla 113 LIP VW MOM 11WROUN ci1121 WM DE MD f 119011140 MOM, 11E_POWNI/10_010111 II W N FM) IIVANDWI RIOS PI PE Vane 111$1.13 la Of, 111-, Mi NIA ItRINLISOICINSIWINKLIIEDMINDIN lal TOPRALNNIM INWEISINION NO 11/1,01111016N WINE IN RON= N ALL MUNE NM, AMIN PI NM N 264X1A1 01111101IL 111110 nan NON _ 11111 EXPTIllf MOM INNS 0101OLL MI WV MN IN WOES RILILINMINALEI 10110 RI DE NM OF ONO ONION. NNWMOM NIMININ IF a PW1111110, MIOEM ININNITR MO AVM WWW N I MISS,UN W 101411.10711 IN901111410112A110(11/11110 WIEN NAN TO MR MIMEO WON, MOM (011111EMwoef M-, W N OMR NUMountalittlff,_110$111it MWIV11 N MEM I OSKTSIII DE MIR 1131ow F.T.C. mann on lilt ass Is 11011/201t_1141; PICK 016110 VOUS W 51111.FINICIN, 111111 OORMS3 ODIN 1100i VI 11114211011/10111. NINE NIA WI I INV 10011004, WIN 1111.111 PPP NIKE rnv,Itz if 00445 WOK ON IVA 11620)0111, WIINCI N 1111.111t ROM MRS Ft1 li511013 15E MAONA,111 MUDD I PI NNW NO KOMI Varna WI) VIM MS I VINE; OWL MIpanDE FINDS NEON RA MEC lb Oilil_1(1 MD 4

_on-n 1 ISO 112113 TI 11154 4 Ito 11 117141 3 1 42 IN142 NMI 2 nit 143 omitTO 1112.4 2 ONO PPM? ft I1N NNES M 111111 IMO PNIN DC 011 If IC INK01111111tit 011 ION till 1011(0111111101WL TM MK PE DIPS W 9D WWI 4 Ellallatt, NC MAI01 MINIM VOWS ME it f PE 1118 NE Mitte PI PE WA Oen

11411 APPENDff B

STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK mumCOLLEGES

REVENUE SUMMARY (BY FTE STUDENT)

AND CONTRACT REVENUE FERDERU CASH _ ONSORS- CHARGRUCK TUITION IN LIEU Of SPUN, CONT, COME AID UPSET AID HIM FUND BALANCE REVENUECONTRIBUTION REVENUE REVENUE

123 $37 (1 3) 1970-71 111492 1401 $364 $114 $ 7 $ 1 1544

$34 $32 (1 4) 1971=72 11,575 1465 1364 $111 $ 4 5 1557

8582 $44 $41 $ 5 1172-73 111615 $411 $400 1111 $ $ 6

1650 $49 154 0311 1973-74 111119 1520 1442 $133 $ .4 $ 5

$49 $55 (132) 1974-75 111969 1557 $459 $144 $ 7 $ 2 1727

1759 $53 155 1145) 1175=71 12,002 1510 1440 1117 $ 1 $ 3

1788 150 179 11161 11111=71 $21117 1651 $474 $139 $ 9 $ $

$121 140 $95 1121) 1177-11 $21339 1193 1523 1160 $ 11 $ 3

$194 110 1116 11511 1971-10 121531 1725 1596 $111 $ 16 $ 7

1937 151 1141 (171) 1971=10 12,664 $776 $614 $191 $ 11 $ 5

1190 $111 ($26) 1910=11 621104 1121 1639 1214 $ 17 $ 5 164

$991 153 1113 (1191 111112 13,011 1195 $653 $218 $ 2: $ 4

$171 $ 59 131 101213 13,255 $915 1611 1234 $ 26 $ $1,049

$11114 1111 1 65 1 2 1913-14 13,524 11,104 $773 $245 $ 30 $ 7

1175 $ 51 162 1,14=15 0,973 111,161 1112 $250 1 34 $ 5 $1,246

1119 t 52 167 1015-16 /1,291 $1,237 $916 $210 1 31 $ 7 81i462

1189 1 51 119 1916-11 $4,673 $1,306 $1,070 $217 $ 36 $ I $1,188

145

144 APPENDIX C-1

CHANCELLOR'S TASK FORCE ON COMMUNITYCOLLEGES Committee On Funding(A)

Credit Hour- FTE Conversions Based on 1985.86Final Budget Requests

FTE IS I0111 1011S KI111010 1111 INS INHI 11045 walFmr. II UJ1 1014_30 19041 1N5ii 11154 Me 15141 111141 __M411 K11.4 10243 11044 14511 KIR et I5I4HI IRS !NHS 141541 Ilt CU F11 KM 01 1115* M541 KIS 0,10,10 KUL 911 KUL III KUL WKS MCI 0.10.1)) 0.0.10 10111 EX 451.11 FR KRIM MOPE 0.14/0 121,3110 0011 00111 1/911 0911 MCA 01.10.111 0,01,121 0ue.n4 0,11.111 040.04 1001 Oils nas 10111 131,01.2 131,01.5 111,051,1 111,10,1 10,013 10,111.1 I 10,3113 111,1141 12,111,4 12,111.1 01,011 10,7141 1 3,03,5% 3,03,10 2,111,0 3.11130 1,10,111 1,1113 2,00.1 2,00.0 1,131.1 41113 1 irnit 4,M,S 2,101,1 1,013 5,133.3 4,110,1 410.4 3.20,1 302.1 4,00,1 1,131,4 1,02,1 1 4,01.4 I 0,10 47,171 11,10 44,001 COO DX 1,114.5 41013 1,050.1 1,111.3 1,10,0 5,045 4,1145 1,003 1 1,010 1,00,4 1,045.4 1 141,415 113,111 113.21i (110101 1,0113 2,01,4 441,1 141,101 1,103 2,411,1 1,111.1 1,5143 1,03,0 1,05,1 1,04.1 1 0,85 t01111114 1,01,4 I 1,121,5 00 1420 11,114 1,111,1 1,111.9 4041 1,3513 1,5,3 1,10,0 1,45.0 1,103 1,10.1 I 31,01 33,20 CC 1,119 1 1,4/1.0 0,00 33,15/ 1,112.) 1,311.1 1,411,4 1,3113 1,331,3 2,111,1 2,01.0 1,20,1 1,1113 1,4113 1 ZAN 04,20 WIN 2,211,1 1 2-,02,1 11,01 11,00 3,014,1 7,03,1 2,913 2,111.1 1,512.1 2,70,1 2,10,0 3.01.1 4111.1 1 11,111 2,00,0 1,103 1 11,10 19,140 01,411 MOUS 5,010.2 4111.3 3,111.5 10,1 1,771.5 3.4140 2,3113 4,0,1 4,01,5 3311,1 3,4103 I 10,431 _ IIIE 4113 1 1,331,1 I3. % 13301 14,00 14313.1 14433 1,01.4 5,013 5,10.1 1,72.0 450,0 1,111.1 1,1241 4,1711 1 01,101 04 WWI II 1,1113 1 11,111.1 141,01 143,115 1,1143 13,01.4 11,02.1 10,0 1,311.1 1,50,0 1,$)1.1 11,245 11,213.1 1,311,1 1,10.1 1 11,211.1 1 11!,411 313,041 111,W) M,%0 tui10.6 401.1 4105.1 1,151,4 1,3111 1,452,4 1,1144 1,00,0 9,1153 9,114,1 4011 1 IOW 1,411,5 1,415.5 I 1,013 20,131 211,03 115,0 10,0 1,013 1,131,1 1,1131 1,710,5 1,10,1 2,00,1 2,053,1 2,0141 1,121.4 13744 1 t 1,011.1 1 45011 41,111 4511 13.10 1130 40/3 1,113 2,019 2,103 1,103 1,739,2 1,01.1 1,193 450.1 1303 1 0,111 10101 WI 1,111,1 1 230,3 13,03 13.01 1430 4,2111 4,043 2,1143 2,1145 2,051,3 5,01.4 410.0 1,090,1 2,10,5 2,115.5 1 11,111 6,00,2 1 0,12 11,111 49,211 7,103 1,044 7,314,3 401.1 1,111.4 1,3150 1,411.1 2,50,0 2,111,I 1,02.1 1 111,315 011001 410.0 I 1,1113 114101 114,02 1030 1,1113 1,01.1 1,101,0 3,411,1 1,10.1 1,311.1 1,110.1 1,10.1 440.0 1 KOS 10. 1,114,1 1-,311,4 1 0,112 14,111 11312 1,111,2 4121.1 1,1143 1,02.1 1530 5,1213 4,10,0 1,1140 1,113.3 1,10,1 5,114 0 5,1113 1 130.1 1 14,411 13,113 1,01,1 0,117.1 1,013 0,10 41,01 1,441.4 0,432.0 1,20.1 1,200,1 1,10,1 1,311,1 1,05.1 1315.1 1 1,1C0,1 1 1,10,1 115,111 15130 11130 1030 3,10,2 11,01.3 10,151.3 14113 13.3140 11003,0 10,500,1 14111.4 11,90.1 1 001 15,130.1 15,1143 I 11,043 231,113 253,441 atto 21230 3,013 3,9110 24111.4 0,125.1 11,50,0 3,951,1 4,00,0 3,011 14112,1 11,1113 1 NAN MA 1,111,1 1 1,041 104,00 01,01 414040 0430 1,015.1 1,10.0 4,1140 1,111.5 1,266.0 1,231,0 5,0153 4,10.1 4,10,1 1 1,10.0 4,211.1 1 111,10 11130 Irmo 5,4543 1,254.4 1,111.3 04,10 10.00 3.5144 5,1113 3.053 1,50.5 1,0).5 1,40./ 1,301,4 3,03.4 1 13143 1 11311 3410 11,10 lorma Cml 3,133,3 4,12i3 4,191.1 404.3 31,10 3,041 3,1140 3,50,1 1,251.1 4,1313 3,425.4 3,415.1 I 1,013 1 113,101 115,111 41:1114 5,641.1 4,1113 4,4111 151,111 133,10 4,03,3 1,2140 4,40,14 1,041 1,10.0 1,141,1 1,50,0 43123 I 704110 4,1151 1 3,1133 111,111 111,111 114,10 10,01 1103 1,141.4 7,143$ 1,00,0 1,100,0 1,1040 1,113.1 1,03,1 2,013.4 1,10,0 1 3,141.1 1 111,01 111,01 10,00 .11110 to 11,3053 1,1113 2,515.1 titlik 0,00,3 11,20,0 7,025.0 41213 11,034 11,05.3 1,1142 2,1140 1 11,01 SION t 141253 1 103341 4130 1330 0,10 1,411,0 1,534 1 11,103,4 ISr,250 I 14,311 1,40.4 1,510,1 1,042 15,111.1 0,111,1 1 1104104 1,4542 1 1,01,3 03,111 11130 1,90,1 1;04,1 1,1143 1,03.1 1,10,0 1,01.0 1,013 1,1143 1,1144 1,111;4 I 1303 1 4130 0,111 17,011 141111 10,1 2,5133 1,111.1 2,013 2,141 15,01 1,411,1 1,311,1 2,211,1 2,10.1 1,01.5 2,431,1 1,131.4 1 3.10.5 1 540/ 51,01 54,140 11014111 3.111.1 3,114,1 1,01.5 0,011 5,05.1 3.4113 1,1141 1,111.4 5,10.1 3.103,1 3,05.1 435.2 1 11,411 5,103.0 1 7,10,1 14,01 11,01 11,131 3,1143 1,01,1 1,140.3 ',MI 13113 1 tSit N o 1 I 4 111,110 111,111 114,111 143,30

IfSO 5

1,11,_ Um 01.1%41 147 146 APPENDIX C2

CHANCELLOR'S TASK FORCE ON COMMUNITY COLLEGES Committee On Funding (A)

Aid Costs & Enrollments Based on 1905-86 Final Budget Requests

MEI FR NCI NE1A11110 FINE1 FR FLOMFit rum n FtMi FMB FT/F1E MThFM ME 111 MUNI 1111111170411021 Malt COM TIOUPIOGNMIEN ME01

VW ON,211,120 130,110.0 110,520.1 7,216.1 42,041,102 49,092.3 32,171.1

WINO 1,525,00 2,137.1 CO. 0.0 112,N0 $40.1 121.1 1,20.0 NM 15.515,254 4,936.4 410.4 194.0 0,CO3 1,177.0 ONO OMR 7,511,00 2,0414 2,045.4 300.0 31,000 NCO 4210 WON 4,241,02 1,014.7 1,004.7 145.1 61,536 250.0 250.0 CLUM111411131 4,34,301 1,1219 1,1219 CI 0 250.0 290.0 50.0 et If FMB MI 9,067,961 2.291.1 ?dna 175.0 90,141 1,010.0 MOIR 11,40,522 21611.0 2,111,0 205.0 119,00 1,404,0 X10.0 WREN 19,03,00 4,110.5 4,111.5 275.0 111,227 2,10.0 1,113.2 MR 39,431,00 9,1114 0,0 1,200.0 40,00 3,700.0 ,700.0 2,513.0 FANO 1151111111 42,25443 7,503.0 7,500,41 0.0 19,203 4,004 iltIOHNIIIIIIIW 5,40,627 1,4115 1,40,5 95.0 2,00 0S0 355.0 OBOE 7,947,(0) 2,074.1 2,074.1 293.0 50,0:0 721.0 742.0 125.0 IONS OMR 5,72s,0110 1,759.6 1,751.6 10.0 41,254 70.0 NMI WWI noW,034 4,01J 1,011.0 0.0 443,00 2,900.0 1,334.0 ABM ,00,003 2,714.0 2,714.0 0.0 131,411 1,075,0 310.0 teR0111 5,110,03 1,*1.6 1,314.1 130.6 0 475.0 430.0 MK NW 17,270,342 5,116.6 5,114.6 00.0 311,000 2,00.0 1,515.1 2,209.0 10111 32,324,400 1,400.0 1,400.0 424.0 121,152 3,556.0 5,300.0 111010 0,147,572 15,10.1 15,00.1 313.11 6,500 4,70.0 MOM (AM 11,300,00 3,00.0 3,1510 547.0 09,716 1,154.0 133.0 230.0 101111,0/111111 4,100,79S 1,20.0 1,211.0 175.0 59,10 05.0 ODOM 21,02,011 5305.3 5,03.3 0.0 40,000 1,60.0 ' 1,200.0 MIKE 431111 13,226,192 3,625.7 3,123.7 204.0 251,245 1,014 142.6 1,303.0 MINI 22,521,3Th 6,275.0 6,275.0 320.0 120,000 2,000.0 ROHM DEM 7,330,991 2,10.0 0,0 1710 60,000 1471.1 531.7 2,194.3 9/1111 C41111 45,732,470 12,1213 12,123.3 503.0 164,00 2,230.1 SALM CONIV 1,203,216 1,459.2 1459.2 125.0 0 190.1 M.4 550.0 141101111-0111011 7,095,315 1,916.4 1,911.4 141.0 12,111 725.0 50.0 MOM WITT 10,511,10 2,431.4 2,431.4 475.0 0 971.0 1,320.1 MOWN 21,213,1% 5,03.0 0.0 111.0 147,2N 1,711.1

II balsa, Minns Whir%

148 APPENDE 0-3

CHANCELLOR'S TASK FORCE ON COMMUNITY COLLEGES Committee On Funding (A)

Computation or State OperatiniAid Current Formula Based on 1985.86 Find Budget Requests

1011 1011 1011 101N. 11All hiM All mai All PAOLI All PANE Mi M1E AID POOLE All PAM ift 011111113 1911111 F ME All WM AM IIVDM1011 FOR t$11 ILL 101/91001 1011112 Fre All 411 1011 L L$ O LEO 1.J0=IN PAW LEOI- II Mai PATtI 1,29/0) 21230 0.50 'MIN' 103.0 ILO)

10111 1101,04,76 Ile,ni,coo Atom misttlit 11,2,011111,40,IN 1111,211,019 11,512,M11,01,06 112,211,16110,56,111

016101 2,412,26 0 0 51,40 2, T21,13 2,110,191 50,2 214M1 2,124,155

_ 41170):4 112,114 11,121 6,00 1,411,102 4,71,102 11,015 10,160 114,115 1,76,96 DN 2,551,2 11,50 0,00 15,00 1,71,t3/ 2,104,931 16,33 6,150 20,10 2,17,2 Et11110 1,05,115 31,10 $4,100 3,211 1,412-MI 1,432,00 0;2 20,10 11;26 1,61,2 'mon 31,512 0 0 1,450,01 1,450,01 41,26 71,10 12,06 1,542,0/ Et F1111 2,I71,3/5 0,319 37,100 0,61 LONA 3-,034-,251 11,150 6;10 242,63 3,270,2 01110 3,110,00 101,00 0,120 59,50 3,131,10 3,131,0 M,1N 31,110 64,940 4,11,140 MKS 4,16,125 171,411 6,2 51,114 4,410,11 1,110,111 2,10 11,212 517,62 I,61,121 OIE 11,273,00 0 11,103 20,003 12,61,400 11,115,452 111,M 15,00 177,30) 12,62,62 1,315,00 MIA 212,500 0 1,00 0,141,10 1,01,10 719,150 01,61 10,111 10,02,111 F111142 1,174,375 41,01 20,140 lox 1,16,11 1M5,00 117,16 21,110 10,16 1,022,033 MIR 1,14,K0 2,50,16 72,591 12,11i 15,00 2,151,36 2,751,335 111,510 0,114 202,111 2,51,10 11111114 2,111-AO utigin 11,5k 31,100 20,127 2,310,00 2,61,02 131,50 51,26 117,19 2,411,312 NMI 11 1,111,111 1,113,60 213,10 721,500 11011,135 1,011,46 5560 110,10 111,20 1,64,05 $61111 3,511,0N 1,410,10 11,410 0 6,70 443,10 3,56, 209,16 6,30 2,16 arm 2Mi, 151 0,411 21,01 LIAM 0 1,13,191 1,01,01 11,115 0,10 121,525 i,76,171 M. 11,111,05 we 111,01 11,00 155,60 1,76,931 0,10,31 507,00 121;150 01,16 1,i4,011 11,121,10 10,50,03 194,000 11,10 0,571 10,61110 10,144040 113,420 117,11 01,111 111125,62 WS6 27,03,06 11,112,05 554,754 0,354 3,250 20,431,M 20,131,05 111,010 434,10 1,352,00 21,2,05 MOM CO 5,2,61 4,947,M 1312 115,10 44,11 5,241,62 510,152 36,2 10,61 71,61 5,01,01 Ohl OM 1,120,111 44,310 31,100 1,512,50 21,515 1,10,05 1,01,05 11,51 11,00 113,05 1,101,120 1,5%,111 1,01,16 115,01 0 6,00 1,61,311 4,13/,311 311,100 10,40 421,10 1,259,411

0:11 4,00,07 4,62,115 121,900 55,9 121,16 4,62,113 4,112,115 351,511 19,03 421,101 5,31,711 6:11111 1,01, 1;11);150 211,625 11,140 0,06 k191,215 1,191,215 310,11 114,00 194,03 1,01,113 660111 2,02,114 1,115,10 0 31,10 6,00 2,02,10 2,02,100 114;511 43;127 2,511 2,120,014

Mb 0 11,212,111 15,711,115 411,M 101,00 11,0 11,111,511 11,4H,511 I15 ,04 76,411 112,503 11,04,03 91110 C 1,211,10 1,121,00 51,072 21,50 0 1,901,5/2 1,61,571 113,510 72,411 05,10 7,07,50 1111116i 1,2, la 2,395,61 0,014 AM 1,425 2,40, 171 2,41,01 141,375 15,10 16,475 2,05,154 15111 CW 4,61,01 1,019,2% NMI 10,10 0 3,2,041 3,65,61 161M5 46,150 7/1,03 3,111,052 E001111 10,415,51 1,01,150 0 31,312 73,04 1,115,10 1,115,114 317,431 10,2 42,751 1,511,573 WWII, Miro APPENDE 0-4

CHANCELLORS USKFORCE ON COMMUNITY COLLEGES Committee On Funding (A)

Computadon of State OperatintilU Current Fonnula, amended to provide for "the GREATER OF" instkad of "the LESSOR OF"

Bated on 198586 Find Budget Requests

TOR tOIL FOX 1011. 41 MUM All MI AII NMAID Met 1151C All NC All PAY111 AID NOV Oft MING MINIM FM 611 All NM All ll90411L0 MI5 11 AID liCIUM011 MHOS MI AID AID PAW COSTS L100 Loco L000 Lk*WHIN Wei LI00 PAW 1,19 11,0 111.00 0.10 '161' 195.44 112,03

Vol 4114,710 worm 03,100,229 $i,521,Hi 4,324,05111111,147,111 1203,0,9 0,572,1412,01,*112,20,95 1115,101,115

MIME 2,410,ON 2,172,29 51,93 1Y** 1,74,40 19110 9,M 214,141 2,013,411 NON km, Kg 4,110,93 I1,44 11,111 9,04 1,411,402 1,414,402 39,015 14,19 111;175 4-,111-,277 mommoo 2,551,150 IF,* WM IPA 1,701,/9 3,007,200 10,150 34,0 201,90 3,97,14 1,11e,vo 1,39,115 9,90 34,100 3,19 1,431,41 1,01,97 V, /V 20,93 0,253 1,45,011 CumIdiot 1,411,125 4,512 0 1,0,437 1,74,99 9,250 92,09 1,131,91

CMSMr 2 2;171-,315 9,34 37-,100 3,001;251 3-,97-,117 45,14 142,053 konizo CMOIS 4"201 3,49,0:0 101,* 10,420 9,59 3,91,90 4,94,201 173,79 31,19 94,144 4,119,141 anon 7M1,111 olln,125 111,140 9,114 1,114,14 7,14424 421,19 1082 511,142 IM4,141

11,n5,432 I2,213,0 0 154,400 12,91,400 12,50,403 721,500 155,90 177,14 13,424,753

Feta t li,t32,171 4,315,440 29,90 0 1,441,19 11,902,1/1 701,79 204,04 KIN 17,07,14

Rt1SHO 2,117,151 1,114,313 44,143 201140 1-,000 1,05,14 2,107,051 121,725 21,110 151,131 1,344,94 3,01,10 lAttir 72,94 12,111 25i000 2,79,333 3,171,030 111,90 9,141 24,411 3,311,211 2,504,443 /17/1,432 2,119,553 i1,54 34594 ,10;421 2,311,14 2,311,03 131,39 51-,29 10,750 54,90 pods:* 01,203 1,155,111 uomlt 1,ff0,11I tokno 213,115 221,500 1,4435 1,171,114 231,45 3,43,113 MGM 91X4,IN 3,4P,,O0C 11,140 0 15, IN 3,03, IV 3,93,14 24,115 9,90 Mfl 1,44,1% 1,2:), 4,441 27,017 0 1,6,01 /,041,753 12,125 31,900 11),525 2,174,14 19,500 4,111,34 101,000 121,19 KIM 7,517,44 eV Vat 1,111M5 V03,31110 171;011 9,90 131,111 13,810,14 12,114,141 10,40,09 Kw AO 10,571 10,14,114 12,929,79 03,420 111,14 20i515;14 NSW 27,1431r 11,;$12,125 551,154 14,154 3,2% AM,* 21,243,011 911,09 431;44 1,352i410 1,118,I/0 11/061 CO 5,210,144 4,917,20 19,530 115,914 5,241,852 3.3A034 11,301 34,LX 113,435 2,033,19 WM CM 1,120-,311 1,112,500 44,310 37,10) 21,54 1,113,45 li9to,311 14,515 11,94 112,10) 1,011,111 NNW 1,5%,I14 4,01,4211 20,000 1,137,311 1,5%13 313,703 10,0 '35/,$13 11,03 1,317,91 ONE 4,040,477 4,W, IN 121,900 55,140 127,14 4,041,115 1,090,4/7 44,0 390,04 101,10) 44,600 1,54,157 KOIN 1,444,557 7,K4154 211,423 IF,14 1,11015 1,01,59 2,112,X 2,415,* 0 31,100 *KO 2,02,103 2,42,41 114,50 43,927 121,511 3,110,111 237,47 172,93 11,45,14 Wes COI1,242,M 151/11,125 441,6 106,09 Roca 11,411,511 18,24,41 135,034 195,988 3,411,215 9LLIC 3,211,14i 51,072 21,501 1,41,91 3,211,29 173,570 22,411 45,100 111,415 3,024,95 =lift 2,111111) 2,191,3N 0,074 19,44 1,425. 2,411,471 2,I*19 141;375 181,34 44,0 at,c43 4,472,421 OMB FM 1,3,124 3,0?1,2% 05,091 100,700 4 3,223.011 4,46,12 14/,151 IC4,304 455,157 10,141,19 111INCE 11,415,544 7343.7N 0 38,312 73,644 10,45,54 IL Mk, Chinii Olikr11 152 151 APPENDE C-5

CHANCELLORS TASK FORCE ON COMMUNITY COLLEGES Committee On Funding (A)

ComputadonofState Operating Aid- Current Formula, amendid by defining an FIT as a Student taking 12 Credit hours instead of 15 Based on 198146 Final Budget Riqueits

NI TOR TOrI TOR TOR *1 All PAW All PAW on ma IN ME liSIC AID IASIC AM 111/11 lID N*L 9I% MIN RON 110 UN All AIM All Mat COSTS XL All RCM MISS Ila All All INIS 1- IN 1- * lJ00 1.-7_00 MOM /69611.1 IN NM

1.12 1,250 35,03 212IN '11111' 195.01

11111 132A14113 1/03,t0i3t1 15,113,721 11,521,111 11,321,0311211,153,113 1113,270,7i, 19,372,M12,1%,*113,211,015 1205,01111

%IWO 2,110,03 Ass 0 34,400 .311%,20 2,110,001 10,917 3,93 214,147 014,0 ROI opt, IN ilino 215,117 11,13 30,N0 1,01201 1,3,102 34,115 10,010 10,171 117N-1177 CAVA c0 3,037113 3,10,112 11,411 13,10) 13,0N 3,037,293 10140 KO,* 3201,,03

11111,117 1,191,731 47,453 31,103 3,23 11703,43 1,1107 41,730 20,5N 11,250 1,70,117

MINH 1,74,53 1,70,01 11,13 0 0 1,113,M I,141,M 61,25o 13,7% _12,03 1,0,31 CC I Ell 3,17?-,117 3,31,23 IN,411 371IN 13,31 3,7721233 3,427,117 1911951 43, IN 142, 3,131,737 CM14 4,M,31 4,312,50) 124,350 IA 420 59,50) 4173,170 4,511;20 213,70 31;10 304,N 4,39,141 NICIES1 7,141,13 7,03,101 214,101 3,30 2,114 7,M,111 7,141,221 124,410 11,32 5171142 1,01,141 INC H,775,432 151311,211 129,5% 15114 3 3,000 111045,43 11,175,131 721,5% 15,03 177,3% 11,02,152 F1S1101 NOON; 11,711,750 no,in 11,02,44 12,054,415 70,730 201,031 115,111 13,0501

2,1171151 2,217,0 3 12,102 2040 I,* 2,311110 2,117,151 127,715 29,110 IS,O 2,341,0 CUE 3,171,03 3,2031701 10,740 1/,111 20005, 3,411,51 3,171,0 141,570 60,114 201,414 3,31,214 IllOC 21111,02 2,719,34 71,1N 141%) 20,117 2,311132 2,211,131 134,500 51,13 117,150 2,471,32 11971,114 Sint 4,515,03 11,407 0 221,503 10,03,103 11979,414 SS,313 110,* 17112N 1,0,114 1130,031 MITM ;MA 121,101 0 11701 4137,510 31514,0 201,125 3,30 231,90 3,01,%5 11981011 2,044,133 2,10,315 N1575 27,N7 2,251107 ni now 3,* 121,525 2,171,211 1M WI 4i11015 7,914-,n1 trim 0,100 153,50) 1,071117 6,111,313 507,* 129113 0,13 7,51714% ION 011/1,711) ui, $0,50 0,011 10,511 13,442,1M 12,121,710 413,420 111,4% St, III 13,110,1% %AN 27,243,13 24,715,121 113,443 14,354 3,250 25,53,117 25,521,177 NI,* t31,10) 1,351,110 24,31,537

NIØ %MAX 1,114,373 1%,10 115,114 44,13 1,511,310 3,720I031 112153 03,33 5,710,170 kAINtOIlI 1,120,311 1,171,125 55! 37,103 21,575 2,1C0,111 1,120,311 94,575 10,010 113,435 2,033,753 DONA 1,31,13 272,110 IAA a,* 11511173 1,311173 323,700 91,403 4211100 1110,13 NKr t0.i 1,010,17/ 1,645,017 13,121 0,111 127,123 1,031,751 1,031,751 39,513 0103 421,0 1,433,343 KVA 1A2,I2 274,531 17,K0 NAN 10,37,031 1,C0,557 390,000 101,03 %WA 1,505,15/ 3,111-,2% 11,175 MN MIL* 3711% 30,0 3,0,225 1113113% 1$,S7 43,927 23,514 3,110,111 WE CO11,112,11I 11,721,114 132,351 101,0N 20,147,30 11,212,111 435,001 47,497 111,53 11,90,414 SUN C 31111,31 2,?10I 43P 2I,101 0 2,370,171 2,370,271 min 71,419 101031 2,514,34 154 tril,12 2,114,313 13,141 21,110 3,114,151 2,13,13 111,375 15,IN i,475 3,024,10 153 ttSIII 4,211,13 3,M,030 104,172 103,100 0 4,03,072 4,03,072 111,145 41113 231,03 1,212,0/3 010811 10,40,511 1;751703 215,132 3,3r no 1,111,01 1,111,01 3471151 100,206 4551757 9,147,407 JiArgo, kw 17.1414 APPENDIX C-6

CHANCELLOR'S TASK FORCE ON COMMUNITY COLLEGES Committee On Funding (A)

Computation of State OperathigAid- Senator W.T. Smith - Proposal Based on 1985-86 Final Budget Requests

1111 12544 1900-11 1 RI 198544 1964 SUR 410 STATE Alt MIMI 1 MIN Kura ciLDINEP MEX$ WE fin $11(014 1 00 KMOD OM 1031 SID FEV Itti SID IV 1011 HA FN1 WNE 1 1 Will _CRE111 1fS 6 MISS 01,111111011 1 FOR 41 5114 FT 1E2 CT 85741111X41

1 101/LS 1506,211,661113,703,127 $116,12,71202,507,90 63201077,0M 1,773,810 11,05612,131,762 1

1 MINIM 1152510211 7i1751 000 2,111,913 1,150,020 3,613,037 17,119.0 1,111 2,911,913 1 POSE 15,51,22 1,121,250 1,913,321 10,774,001 1,481,121 40,1110 3,397 1,113,1211 CAM CO1 7,511,02 2,211,02 2,643,12 5,32,000 1,871,070 13,015.0 1,125 2,443,151 CLINIC. 1,211,192 175,170 ii413,755 3i014,112 2-1517-,137 11,940.0 151 1,193,1551 01111111-1 4,364,307 1,270,50 1,403,353 3,017,847 2,713,047 13,64.0 62 1,443,3501 et Oi F1111 9,067,168 2,702,903 3,000,150 1,315,02 6,017,218 21,500.0 1,315 3,000,7501 DAM 11,61,522 3,593,12 3,717,014 7,167,21 7,63,481 20,087.0 1,965 3,717,02 1

MOM 11,61,041 5,710,221 6,973,413 11,112,810 12,179,621 55,111.0 2,83/ 4,173,4131 DIE 29,01,430 9,812,176 11,72,454 19,125,751 11,738,100 101,350.0 6,610 li,700,631 F16111011 II 42,15,113 8510 10,49,46 8,194,933 31,45,953 98,120.0 3,65 10,70,1001

FIKIHOI 5,169,427 1,22,133 1,161,530 4,127,391 3,42,097 10,010.0 955 1,111,5301

Win 7,27,20 7,10,001 3,0H,107 5,537,911 1,932,393 19,126.0 1,12 3,011,1071

NLIC 5,721,20 1,597,16 2,251,710 1,131,12 3,177,140 1,16.0 1,409 2,251,761

MI St 72,419,036 1,711,270 1,219,173 15,459,72 11,151,613 37,239.0 1,511 1,119,4131 1,940,010 *MIN 2,777,000 3,611,20 1,12,000 5,293,010 22,20.0 1,714 3,411,961 17110111 5,111,23 1,02,520 1,03,700 3,424,343 3,I73su3 1,00 1,015 1,63,1031 10611 It 17,271,312 5,76,000 1,871,017 11,511,362 10,400,295 32,611.0 3,715 1,15,4171 14Na 32 ,121,100 11,774,800 12,115,955 21,549,600 20,130,141 15,740.0 5,107 12,185,921

OM 6,147,572 20,104,CO 23,172,0t4 17i343,571 6,131,722 15,000.0 10,191 23,672,1501 111.021 C 13,5:1,015 3,28,611 5,65,056 9,331,156 7,36,029 37,210 2,114 sygys I

OM= 1,12,795 1,26,12 1,12,901 3,56,045 2,941,01 12,147.0 816 1,038,9011

MOS 21,46,041 7,173,713 7,120,92 11,111,318 11,071,091 55,350.0 3,160 7,110,9501

OM UV 15,221,192 1,514,761 5,411,549 10,429,431 9,807,113 47,007.0 2,029 5,42,5491

WWII 22,521,22 1,517,131 1,113,550 13,971,241 13,137,842 45,150.0 4,200 9,53,5501 MCI'S 7,330,01 2,470,155 3,119,012 4,140,034 1,211,29 ANA 1,350 3,111,0221

MX CS6,732,178 15,172,04 17,9/1,971 2,559,7114 27,710,500 117,021.0 7,110 17,191,9781 6,261,051 wilt 1,203,716 1,935,16 2,027,63 6,175,23 1,279.0 1,237 2,027,631 1111011164 7,095,315 2,22,914 2,812,3513 4,592,401 4,252,975 17,72.0 1,356 2,02,3501

IMAM 10,591,25 2,972,655 3,32,370 7,618,910 7,233,195 24,51.3 1,162 3,351,3701 NESIOUVE 21,213,9114 7,520,60 0,021,07 18,493,114 18,118,159 41,01.0 3,239 1,025,1371. .~...anp...wreff....oasomm. J.11. bIla, Mama 07-111-16

1 55 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY Report to State University & the Division of the Budget, "Limitations and Regulations: State Aid to the Community Anker, George,"Summary of Operating Aid Forma* 1950 Colleges of New York State Part I: Operating Funcli4" Decem- through 1986-87 SUNY Request" Updated April, 1986. ber, 1969; and "Part II: Capital Implovements," January, 1970. Assaciation of Collegs and Universitie:$ of The State of New York, Quality inIfigherlAlucatiorr A View From the Presi- Romano; Richard_M;;"An Economic Perspective on the Pub- ctentS Office, ACUSNY: Albany, New York, March, 1986. lic Financing of the Community College," unpublished, 1986. Chambers, M.M. and Hines, Edward R., Appropriation% "State_Funds for Needy Undergraduates to Rise 12 Pct. ThiS 1985-1986:State As Fund* for qyeratins Expenses of Higher Year, Survey Fincia," Chronicle of Higher Education. Education_liational Association of State Universities and Lmid-Grant Colleges, 1985. State University of New York, "Community College Cost arld Revenue Summary, 1970-71 to 1986-87," December, 1985. Commission for the Review of_the Master Plan for Higher Education, The Challenge of Change: A Reassessment ctf the ,Memorandum on SED Paper: "Net Cost of Stu- California Community College:4 Marct4 1986. dent Attendance atPostsecondary Institutions in New York State," March 21, 1986. Haltstemt D. Kent Sttaewide Planning in Higher Educa- ticm, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office,1974. State University of New York, report of the Thsk Forceon Improving the Quality of Student Life, March, 1986. "How the States Fank on 7 Waded," ChnmicM of Higher Education. State University of New York, repiok to the Chancellor, Disk Force on Articulation, May; 1978. Krentet Arthur 3; (with Daryl W. liade and Elaine M. Fralier), "State Aid for Community Colleges," The Ways and Means State Universfty Trustee Committee on the Special Problems Report Albany; New York December, 1985. of the Community Colleges, Final Report February, 1976.

LaValle, &enater Kenneth 11.i "Overview of CommanityCol- State University of New York, The Chattense and the Choke, lege Presidents' Survey," March; 1986. Report of the Independent Commission on the Future of the State University, January 16, 1985. MartenS, Freda R.H., "Analysis of theRecommendations of Reports on New York's Conununity Colleges from 1969 to 1985 Teak Force on Problems in Community Colleges, A Pre- and Their Pretetit Statue; Office of Community Colleges; liminary Report for Discussion Among the ConstituencieS SUNX March, 1986; ((the Community ColUege4 November, 1972, Revised Decem: bet 1972 and January, 1973. "A Summary Thbu'ation cri Various Reportson the Community Colleges;19594985," Office of Community Col; Task Force on Financing Higher Education, Higher Edu- leges; SUNX February, 1986. cation in New York StatgA Report to Governor Nelson A. Rockefeller, March 5, 1973. , "The Historical Development of the Community Colleges_ofthe State University of New Yo" SUNYCom- Task Force on Community_Colleges, Report qf 0ze 7bsk Fbrce munity College TOPiCal Paper Number 1; Office of Commu- on Community Colteges, Uctober, 1973. nity Colleges; SUNX September, 1985. The Reporl of the 7bmporary StaW Commission on the "Governance of theState University of New York Future of Posts-econdary Education in New York State, March Community_Collegetc" SUM Conununity College Tbnical Paper 31, 1977. Ntanber 2, Office of Community Colleges; SUNX November, 1985; "Ttlition and Fees Coati; in Postsecondazy Institutions-1965, 1975, 1984," American Association of Commiaft and .htnior , "Student:4 Faculty and Programs in State University Colleges Indicators Brief; Wathington, D.C.: AACJC, April 8, of New York Community Colleges," Thpical Paper Number 1986. 3, Office of Community Colleges, SUNX Deceraver 1985. University of the State of New York, The State Education , "The Evolution of the State University of New York Wepartment, Fiscal Indicatorsfor Postsecondary Education Comnumty College Funding Formuli4" SUNY Community inNew York Staa4 1979-80 through 1983-84, January 1986. College Ibpical Paper Number 4, Office of Community Col- leges, SUNX December 1985. aVét Cost of Student Attendance atPostsecondary Institutions in New York State, January, 1985. Maryland State Roard for Community Colleges, "Thisis the Maryland Community College System" undated. , A Report by the Board oiRegents to the Governor and_Legislature on State Student Financial Aid, trecember, National Association ofrollege and University ButinessOffl- 1985. cem in cooperation With Education Commission of theStates, Public Community CollegePinanct% by Gary Winger,NACUSO Wattenbarget_ James L and Mercer, Sherry L.,_Rnancing and ECS, February, 1983. CommunityColgea. 1985, University of Florida, Institute of Higher Education, 1985. National Association of State Scholarship and Grant Programs, 17th AnnualSurvey Report 1985-86 Accwremic Year; Wharton, Clifton R., "Community Collmie Governance: Poi- . January, 1985. itics,Policy and Educatime A speech presented to the Annual Conference, Aataciation of Roarda of MuStees of Commu- Peat, Marwick Mitchell &Co., 27re .Future qf the Public 71va- nity Colleges of SUNY, Monticello, New York September 21, Year Colkges in New York State, 1969. 1985. KOMWASZOINCiatetattatentAtetailWatitsttialautt.nt 42 ERIC Clearinghouse for Junior Colleges 156 MAY .1 5 1987