COMMUNITY COLLEGES AND THE ACCESS EFFECT This page intentionally left blank Community Colleges and the Access Effect Why Open Admissions Suppresses Achievement

Juliet Lilledahl Scherer and Mirra Leigh Anson COMMUNITY COLLEGES AND THE ACCESS EFFECT Copyright © Juliet Lilledahl Scherer and Mirra Leigh Anson, 2014. Softcover reprint of the hardcover 1st edition 2014

All rights reserved. First published in 2014 by PALGRAVE MACMILLAN® in the United States— a division of St. Martin’s Press LLC, 175 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10010. Where this book is distributed in the UK, Europe and the rest of the world, this is by Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited, registered in England, company number 785998, of Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire RG21 6XS. Palgrave Macmillan is the global academic imprint of the above companies and has companies and representatives throughout the world. Palgrave® and Macmillan® are registered trademarks in the United States, the United Kingdom, Europe and other countries. ISBN: 978–1–137–33600–2 (hc) ISBN: 978–1–137–33601–9 (pbk) Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Scherer, Juliet Lilledahl, 1974– Community colleges and the access effect : why open admissions suppresses achievement / Juliet Lilledahl Scherer and Mirra Leigh Anson. pages cm Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978–1–137–33600–2 (alk. paper)— ISBN 978–1–137–33601–9 (alk. paper) 1. Community colleges—United States—Admission. I. Anson, Mirra Leigh, 1978– II. Title. LB2351.2.S335 2014 378.15430973—dc23 2013039919 A catalogue record of the book is available from the British Library. Design by Newgen Knowledge Works (P) Ltd., Chennai, India. First edition: April 2014 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 ISBN 978-1-137-33601-9 ISBN 978-1-137-33100-7 (eBook) DOI 10.1057/9781137331007 For our children: Olivia and Lena; Jenna and Jacob; Alex, Annekah, and Andrea; Daniel and Abby; Owen and Cora; Julian, Will, and Audrey; Mason and Cole; Luke, Dalton, and Conner; Lucas, Noah, Graham, and Lucy; Maia and Elena; Tyler and Ella; Luke and Sydney; Rylee and Samantha; Riley and Evan; Phin and Merrick; Sam, Jersie, Toren, and Deklan; Andrew and Cameron; Dylan, Morgan, and Madison; Jackson, Brock, and Max; and, truly, every child. This page intentionally left blank Contents

Acknowledgments ix

Introduction 1 Chapter 1 Open Access in Higher Education 7 Chapter 2 The Trouble in Tucson 19 Chapter 3 The Price of Completion at Any Cost 27 Chapter 4 The Perils of Paying for Performance 43 Chapter 5 The Revenue Reality 59 Chapter 6 Honoring the Letter and Spirit of Federal Student Aid 69 Chapter 7 The Disabilities Dilemma 81 Chapter 8 The Access Effect 103 Chapter 9 Creating a New Admission Standard 125 Chapter 10 Providing Meaningful Postsecondary Options 135 Chapter 11 The Equity/Excellence Enrosque 165 viii CONTENTS

Chapter 12 The Impact of Global Competition 179 Chapter 13 Restoring America’s Culture of Learning 191

Notes 207 Index 249 Acknowledgments

Many people enthusiastically contributed to this book out of no greater motivation than to improve public education in America. We are most grate- ful to our students and colleagues—past, present, and future—who inspired this book. We especially thank the students who spent time with us outside the classroom and allowed us to share their personal stories. We feel particu- larly indebted to our dauntless peers in public education—those we know personally and those whose work we admire from afar—many of whom assisted us immeasurably by identifying, collecting, and connecting us to information and sources important to this text. We are humbled and inspired by their courage and scholarly example. Several readers graciously lent their editorial skills to early versions of this text; many thanks to Dustin Lilledahl, Terry Lilledahl, Jim Repp, and Ryan Smith for gifting their valuable time and considerable talents. To everyone involved at Palgrave Macmillan, you have our genuine appre- ciation; your collective commitment to this text from beginning to end was so uplifting and encouraging. To Sarah Nathan, you are the best in the business, and we are eternally grateful for your wonderful advice and cease- less advocacy for this book. Much appreciation, as well, to Mara Berkoff and Devon Wolfkiel, two invaluable Palgrave Macmillan team members who contributed a great deal during the publishing process. Finally, to our husbands, Terry Scherer and Matt Anson, we owe so much for your unwavering support of this publication, from start to finish and in the many years leading up. Your priceless gifts of love, patience, and time made writing this text possible and enjoyable. To our parents and siblings and other family members, teachers, coaches, mentors, and friends who have invested so much in us over the years: thank you for helping us develop our minds and our hearts for the ultimate purpose of serving others. This page intentionally left blank Introduction

Stephanie’s first official function as a newly admitted community college student was a full-day orientation session that included presentations by the college president, each of the numerous student support organizations on campus, a group scavenger hunt that acquainted her with a dozen of her new college peers and key campus offices, and a catered lunch in the student commons. The theme running through the morning’s activities was “We are here to help you succeed!,” and as a recent high school graduate who was not accepted to the state universities she applied to, Stephanie grew more convinced as the day wore on that she had made the right decision to enroll at her local community college. The afternoon began with a group administration of the Accuplacer test, a College Board–developed assessment of basic reading, writing, and mathe- matics skills used to place students in classes of appropriate rigor in their first college semester. In her post-test meeting with an advisor, Stephanie learned that, based on her Accuplacer scores, she would need to begin with precol- lege courses in all three areas—what the counselor referred to as “develop- mental” classes. To get Stephanie registered as a full-time student and to assist her with adjusting to college life, her advisor was also placing her in the college’s First Year Experience course, designed to help her with test-taking, study habits, and other skills needed to survive her freshman year. “I want to be an elementary teacher,” Stephanie told her advisor. “Will any of these classes help me with that?” “They will all help you with that,” the advisor assured her. “You will need to improve in these skill areas before you can begin to take the courses that lead to your degree. As part of your first year experience course, you will complete a degree plan that will show you what you need to take each semester to finish.” What the advisor failed to mention to Stephanie is that she had tested into the lowest levels of developmental mathematics, reading, and English. To complete her precollege-level coursework, she will need to successfully pass three semester-long courses in all three areas with Cs or better. Twenty- seven of her first credit hours at the college will not count toward a degree, and Stephanie’s financial aid clock will start the minute she attended her first developmental courses, which puts her, at best, a year-and-a-half away 2 COMMUNITY COLLEGES AND THE ACCESS EFFECT from enrolling in college credit courses. The advisor also did not share with Stephanie that nine out of ten students who test into the college with similar placement scores never make it to their sophomore year of college-level work. Stephanie was admitted to this open enrollment institution, but she was a long way from having been admitted to college. There are at least two ways to think about the concept of open access to higher education in the United States. One is the more traditional view that is being applied to Stephanie—that anyone with a high school diploma or a General Education Development (GED)1 credential should be granted admission to any community college or four-year institution with an open admission policy. This definition is often accompanied by a belief that, to be truly accessible, higher education must also be affordable and convenient to students in terms of location and class times. It can strongly be argued that by this definition at least the first two years of higher education in America are approaching full accessibility. The average cost of tuition and fees for America’s community colleges for the 2012–2013 academic year was $3,130,2 meaning that a maximum federal Pell Grant of $5550 will cover these expenses, in addition to allowing the purchase of textbooks, and other educational supplies and materials, often with money left over. As a result, if by open access we mean getting students admitted to some postsecondary education with the ability to pay for tuition and books, the United States is approaching a fully accessible higher education system. A study by the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research estimated that “there were about 1,299,000 college-ready 18-year-olds in 2000, and the actual number of persons entering college for the first time in that year was about 1,341,000. This indicates that there is not a large population of college-ready graduates who are prevented from actually attending college.”3 Another view of open access, and the one presented in this book, is that implicit in the extension of access is the promise that there is some reason- able chance for success—that access is to more than just the buildings and the classrooms on campus and includes a likelihood that, once admitted, a student can successfully complete some program of study. This view contends that allowing everyone to access a pathway that leads to great opportunities, but is too difficult for many to traverse, is not really granting access at all, but perpetrating a cruel hoax. This becomes particularly true when those holding open the door know in advance that for many like Stephanie who are being encouraged to enter, there is no other exit but immediately back out onto the street, usually without any counseling about other potentially more meaning- ful postsecondary options at the institution or in the greater community. Each year in the United States, 45% of all undergraduates enroll in com- munity colleges.4 Of those who begin as first-time freshmen, approximately 60% require remediation in one or more of the core academic skill areas of math, reading, or English before being ready for college-level work.5 As a result, a disproportionate percentage of instructional resources and courses offered by these colleges are committed to developmental education, and for many new students little or none of their coursework applies toward a INTRODUCTION 3 degree. For students who are required to first complete these developmental courses, access is not to college, but to the possibility of college if they can successfully navigate their developmental experience. As the national movement toward greater institutional accountability encourages more colleges to develop student tracking databases that mea- sure student success, it becomes glaringly apparent that a significant num- ber of these students will not succeed, and that for those who test into the lowest levels of remediation, colleges are being asked to do the improbable, and often the impossible, in moving them successfully to a college creden- tial. The colleges know it, the faculty know it, and state systems that collect and analyze these data show it. The only players in this open access game unaware of the high probability that the students will never complete a two- or four-year degree are the students themselves (and sometimes their parents or guardians). There seems to be something crass and inhumane about talking about students’ success purely in terms of probability, and every community college administrator can relate anecdotal accounts of students who entered at the lowest levels of developmental studies and eventually completed a degree or certificate program. Most cannot tell you, however, what happened to the remaining 90% who were unable to complete a college mathematics course within three years of enrollment, but spent thousands of dollars—of taxpayer money and usually some of their own—reaffirming failure that the college could anticipate from initial enrollment. Was it fair and just to afford to each of those students the opportunity to fail when it was known in advance that nine out of ten of them would not succeed? Even in an environment of unlimited resources, and of limitless time to be committed to personal devel- opment, probably not. But particularly when colleges, states, and the nation face fiscal decisions of survival proportion, when student debt is burdening even the most successful graduates—let alone those who fail to complete a program that promises employment—and when global economic pressures demand that as a nation we channel every available dollar into improving postsecondary completion, we do not have that luxury. Perhaps paradoxi- cal to some, improving America’s postsecondary completion rate depends in part on making higher education more exclusive by enforcing existing Federal Student Aid (FSA) regulations and by requiring students to meet a performance standard before entering the FSA-eligible curriculum. Inherent in setting a performance standard on the FSA-eligible curriculum is provid- ing access to meaningful postsecondary education alternatives for those who do not initially qualify. There are implications in the assertion that access to the FSA-eligible cur- riculum should be rationed which should make even the most unapologetic elitist uncomfortable. The statistics safeguarded by these colleges and uni- versities demonstrate that those most likely to fall into the underprepared student category are our historically underserved ethnic minority popula- tion. Yet this is the student population in which virtually all of college enroll- ment growth is now occurring, and if we fail to educate these students, we 4 COMMUNITY COLLEGES AND THE ACCESS EFFECT fail our nation’s future. Without question, however, the remedy for low post- secondary completion is not to maintain open access to the FSA-eligible cur- riculum, continue enrolling every interested student, and hope for improved completion, nor is it to accelerate seriously unprepared students into college- level work while threatening to withhold community college funding unless completion rates continually improve. The complete absence of any admissions standard to a nationwide net- work of open-door institutes of higher education, coupled with easy access to FSA, is driving mass underperformance in the K-12 system. Under our current system, there are ample incentives for K-12 students to relax, because the word in the hallways is, “It really doesn’t matter how you do; you can always get into the community college and get it paid for.” So, in addition to open-door policy presently allowing students to enroll in community col- leges, who are unlikely to become college-ready in a reasonable period of time, much less persist to any certificate or degree, this policy counterproduc- tively discourages capable students from applying themselves at the secondary level, which greatly explains why 60% of community college students test into developmental education. Open admissions policy lowers the perceived value of higher education and misdirects impressionable K-12 students from the undisputed truth that quality of academic preparation directly relates to aca- demic success upon enrollment in college. Open enrollment policy bears sig- nificant responsibility for the very large and chronic gaps observed between American students’ real academic potential and their actual development. In his book, Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion, Robert Cialdini recounts a story about a friend who owned a jewelry store and, no matter her efforts, Cialdini’s friend struggled to sell her very reasonably-priced turquoise jewelry on display. One day, on her way out of town on business, she hastily scratched out a note for her employees that was intended to read “Everything in this display case x ½.”6 When the jewelry store owner returned from her buying trip, she was shocked to discover that all the turquoise had sold. The purchases were not driven by a markdown, however. She learned that an employee had misread her rushed handwriting and believed the note to say x2—or double!—the price of everything in the case. Simply put, when her customers perceived the value of the jewelry to be great—worth some- thing—they experienced an increased desire to own it. Similarly, while the open access policy historically associated with com- munity colleges provided, at important times in our nation’s history, critically important enrollment flexibility, for a variety of reasons we must question whether the effects of that policy now undermine the positive effects on student success originally intended and accomplished. We must also be bold enough to investigate whether the reasons for originally applying open access policy still exist, or if community colleges continue to observe the policy for other reasons, even as it contributes to lowered student success. Drawing the parallel between community college open access and rais- ing the price of the turquoise jewelry should not be interpreted to mean that tuition and fees should be increased as a way to increase college-bound INTRODUCTION 5 students’ perceived value and commitment to their educational experience. Though that would be one way to effectively increase the perceived value and attendant commitment for some students, it would also introduce an undue financial barrier to higher education for the most low-income students in the nation. Rather, for reasons that will be detailed throughout this book, the time has come to observe existing FSA regulations and for community colleges to apply a modest admission requirement to the FSA-eligible cur- riculum. Both are long overdue acts of stewardship. This book exposes the fallacy in our national open access thinking and details how tightening admission requirements to the FSA-eligible curricu- lum at community colleges will inevitably strengthen achievement at all lev- els and among all segments of our population, while leading to the creation of an array of more meaningful higher educational experiences. It argues that by proactively creating alternative postsecondary education paths—and advising seriously underprepared students into these other options—we not only better serve all currently enrolling students’ long-term interests, but also enable colleges and universities to better serve those whose preparation and abilities position them for likely success at the college level. This is a book about helping colleges and students identify the paths for success that best suit their preparation, abilities, and life circumstances so that public education resources earn the greatest social and economic returns for stu- dents, colleges, communities, and America. We addressed some of the core issues in this book in a presentation, The Imperative for Improving America’s Culture of Learning: What’s Missing in the Redesign Conversation, at the National Association for Developmental Education conference in 2013. Many colleagues approached us afterward and in the days that followed and voiced the general sentiment one com- menter included on an evaluation form: “We need a whole lot of this being presented nationwide.”7 We hope, after reading our book, you agree and engage your relatives, neighbors, colleagues, and policymakers in serious conversation about the issues raised in this book. Additionally, we hope you feel compelled to act in every capacity you hold power—as a parent, as a grandparent, as a taxpayer, as an educator, as a policymaker—to improve public education in your corner of the world. Prior to governing the state of Oregon from 1967 to 1975, Tom McCall was a Portland television journalist. McCall’s celebrated 1962 documentary, Pollution in Paradise, detailed the effects of industrial pollution on state water and air quality. As a result, concerns over quality of life and envi- ronmental responsibility entered conversations that previously had centered entirely on economic development. While McCall received public plaudits for vastly improving quality of life for Oregon citizens by addressing environ- mental concerns, he flatly rejected the notions that he alone accomplished change and that engaging as a citizen for the benefit of his community made him particularly exceptional, saying in an interview once, “Heroes are not giant statues framed against a red sky. They are people who say: This is my community, and it is my responsibility to make it better.”8 6 COMMUNITY COLLEGES AND THE ACCESS EFFECT

Like Tom McCall, the authors of this book are dedicated public servants. And like Tom McCall, we wish to call public attention to a confluence of environmental issues that—ignored too long—have eroded quality of life in America. And, like Tom McCall, we believe the real heroes are those members in every community across America who will engage in thoughtful discussion about the critical issues raised herein, and take informed action to greatly improve the attitudinal and policy environments that impact public education so that not just Americans may enjoy better quality of life, but citizens around the globe, as well. Chapter 1

Open Access in Higher Education

When the inaugural president of the University of Chicago, William Rainey Harper, first met with his faculty in 1892, he presented an idea that exempli- fied why the new president was thought of not only as an academic prod- igy, but also a visionary. The university, resurrected from recent bankruptcy through generous gifts from Harper’s friend John D. Rockefeller and a col- lection of distinguished Chicago philanthropists, was designed in its new incarnation to be a Harvard or Yale of the Midwest, with the most accom- plished faculty that money could buy and a mission focused on scholarship and research.1 During his rise to the presidency, Harper declared that he had “. . . a plan which is at the same time unique and comprehensive, which I am persuaded will revolutionize university study in this country.”2 In his faculty address, Harper pronounced it an unwise commitment of university resources for these handpicked professors to spend time on the general, lower-division education of freshmen and sophomore students. Instead, this general educa- tion should be relegated to a collection of junior-level colleges—something akin to thirteenth and fourteenth years of high school, where all high school graduates could enroll in college-level courses in a broad array of general, but essential, fields of study. When this general education was completed, the student could apply then to the university for more education in specific disciplines, leading to a scholarly and research-focused bachelor’s degree. Some who listened to Harper’s junior college concept praised the idea, seeing value in having talented faculty who taught and worked only with upper-division and graduate students. Others saw in the recommendation a dangerous precedent—the suggestion that anyone with a high school diploma could continue on to the first two years of college without more stringent admission requirements.3 While Harper never succeeded in mov- ing the first two years of the baccalaureate off campus, another friend and colleague, the superintendent of the area’s Joliet Township High School, applied Harper’s ideas to the creation of an experimental postgraduate high school program. Under the administrative leadership of Superintendent J. Stanley Brown, Joliet Junior College was established in 1901 and enrolled its first six students. Within a year, this postgraduate high school program 8 COMMUNITY COLLEGES AND THE ACCESS EFFECT received formal approval from the district’s school board, and open access to postsecondary education for high school graduates was born.4 Not until the 1940s, though, as thousands of soldiers returned from the World War II to the benefits promised by the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act of 1944, did open access to higher education reach full stride. The “GI Bill,” signed into law that year by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, provided fed- eral government aid to returning soldiers for readjustment to civilian life and “was in effect the largest scholarship program in the Nation’s history.”5 While these federal funds also assisted veterans with hospital bills and provided capital for home and business investments, the most meaningful long-term benefit associated with the G.I. Bill was financial support for postsecondary education opportunities. The American community college has not always functioned as the open access institution it effectively does today; entry to the first, Joliet Junior College, for example, was firmly reserved for high school graduates. In 1922, at the second meeting of the American Association of Junior Colleges (now the American Association for Community Colleges, or AACC), the junior college was described by the AAJC as “an institution offering two years of instruction of strictly collegiate grade”6 [emphasis added]. Altering its junior college definition two years later in 1925, to include a wider curriculum scope in the community college, the AACC specifically impressed that “It is understood that in this case, also, the work offered shall be on a level appropri- ate for high-school graduates”7 [emphasis added]. As World War II came to a close, President Harry S. Truman convened a special Commission on Higher Education to address the unique educational needs of these returning soldiers, many of whom had postponed their second- ary education to go to war. Between 1939 and 1945, approximately 500,000 fewer high school diplomas were issued than in the previous six years. In its 1947 report, Truman’s Commission on Higher Education called for the cre- ation of a national network of community-responsive colleges, with entirely open enrollment policies, to more easily accommodate the vast number of sol- diers without recent formal education records and/or high school diplomas. By some estimates, approximately 25% of the veterans who attended college directly after World War II would not have enrolled if not for the benefits provided by the G.I. Bill, and they chose to attend in unprecedented num- bers. Nearly one million World War II veterans represented half of the men who graduated from college from 1940 to 1955.8 These young veterans were returning to a changed America, often without a completed secondary educa- tion or adequate postsecondary job training, and with the added challenge of competing against hundreds of thousands of fellow soldiers in a society where more jobs than ever before required some formal job training. The Commission’s report also acknowledged that the abundant manufac- turing jobs that built America during the Industrial Age, roughly between 1860 and 1920, had gradually declined in number as major railroads were completed, large cities constructed, and as mechanization replaced thou- sands of manual workers. Of the eligible secondary student population in OPEN ACCESS IN HIGHER EDUCATION 9

1924, only 30% graduated from high school, a rate that by 1960 had risen to 75%.9 And whereas in 1910 just 5% of eighteen-year-olds enrolled in col- lege, that rate had increased nine-fold by 1960. In the fall of 1939, nearly 1.5 million students were enrolled in college; by 1959, that number had more than doubled to 3.6 million.10 By observing the growth in America’s higher education enrollment between 1940 and 1960, the country can be seen taking its first significant steps toward a knowledge-based economy in post-industrial America. During the decade of the 1960s, a new community college emerged somewhere in the United States at a rate averaging nearly one per week, lead- ing one historian of the movement to anoint the community college as “the new land-grant institution; the people’s college in the truest sense.”11 Simply put, the community college movement was the most remarkable develop- ment in education in America—perhaps the world—during the twentieth century, and was driven by the nation’s need to make a college education accessible to every qualified American.12 President Truman’s brand of open access extended into the next decade as America struggled to accommodate the influx of college-age Baby Boomers, though not all community colleges were founded in the 1960s with open door policy, as much as historians and enthusiasts like to recall. Even institutions founded with admissions stan- dards, though, eventually began practicing open enrollment as the nation’s community colleges grew throughout the 1960s to enroll previously under- represented populations in response to the equality-driven demands of the civil rights movement. Community college chroniclers McCabe and Day described this pursuit of educational equity in America, coupled with other efforts to extend social equality to previously marginalized groups, as “the access revolution,”13 and Lavin and Hyllegard proclaimed open admissions to be:

The most ambitious effort to promote educational opportunity ever attempted in American higher education. . . . One of the last great examples of the 1960s commitment to the idea that social policy could and should be used to advance equity in U.S. society.14

Federal legislation, driven by evolving social and educational philoso- phy, encouraged higher college attendance by racial and ethnic minorities, women, persons with disabilities, and those without the financial means to self-fund. Specifically, through Title VI of The Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Higher Education Act of 1965, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act in 1973, and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, postsecondary education was transformed from being an opportunity reserved most commonly for America’s affluent whites, to one extended to students without regard to race, gender, religious orientation, or disability.15 Arguably, no institution in higher education has so consistently, efficiently, and appropriately responded to society’s changing needs as the community college.16 10 COMMUNITY COLLEGES AND THE ACCESS EFFECT

Response to the Unprepared The burgeoning growth of the college-going population, though, was not without its critics. As enrollment increased, many four-year colleges and universities inundated with low-skilled applicants responded by instituting stricter admissions criteria. As a way to assess ability and potential among those applying, standardized tests were employed more routinely, such as the SAT and the ACT, the latter of which became available in 1959.17 Students unable to qualify for enrollment at more selective institutions flooded the nation’s open access community colleges. Between 1965 and the turn of the century, community college enrollment grew by 500% while only doubling in the four-year public sector of higher education.18 As early as the 1970s, scholars began to debate the merits of open admis- sion as unprepared students allowed to enroll in college-level courses expe- rienced unconscionable rates of failure.19 In 1973, Palinchak observed that community colleges in particular were beginning to struggle with a new set of philosophical dichotomies—“quality v. quantity; pedantic v. realistic; elite v. mass; idealism v. pragmatism; standards v. democracy; privilege v. right.”20 In his vanguard text, Evolution of the Community College, Palinchak was one of the first to criticize the appropriateness of open door policy as the com- munity college student body showed ever-widening disparities in prepara- tion and abilities, noting:

A distinct problem arises over the interpretation of what is euphemistically called the “open door” policy. . . . When a “two-year” institution admits any- one and everyone, as a true open door would, it is often done with a sincere attitude of extending democracy and bringing more rights to our citizens. At this point, however, many institutions discover that they are unprepared or unable to provide adequate programs for “students” who are unconventional by all traditional criteria.21

Open door policy, responsible for allowing some students to enroll in col- lege-level courses they were not prepared for, eventually became pejoratively termed “revolving door” policy,22 which is still the unfortunate experience for a large number of students who enter community colleges, enroll beyond their abilities, fail, and leave. Many community colleges that had previously employed wide open access to their college-level courses responded by toeing the door slightly shut in the 1980s and 1990s by way of instituting manda- tory assessment policies for the purpose of evaluating entering students’ col- lege readiness and more effectively advising them into appropriate courses.23 Developmental education course design and enrollment exploded during these decades. “Right to fail” philosophy at the nation’s community colleges had officially yielded to “right to succeed” as concerned community college faculty and administrators sought to limit the casualties of what Richard Fonte termed “laissez-faire open access.”24 Mitchell’s 1989 description of his community college’s conversion from a laissez-faire open door policy to one with mandatory assessment and OPEN ACCESS IN HIGHER EDUCATION 11 placement components draws back the curtain on prevailing thought at the time—that any college not employing mandatory assessment and placement with an open door policy was acting fraudulently:

If our standards were high, our attrition rates were also extremely high, leav- ing us open to the charge that we were committing the fraud of promising and charging for educational services that we could not deliver because we gave “students the right to fail” and provided programs that all but insured that they exercised that right.25 . . . Either we could commit the other fraud—allowing students to continue to enroll in virtually any course they wanted while we raised standards so high that many, if not most, had no chance to pass the courses—or we could do the right thing and prepare them for college level work before we allowed them to attempt college level work. We could “give them the right to fail” or “give them the right to succeed.”26

That same year, Ed Morante argued that mandatory assessment and place- ment should not be viewed as a penalty, but rather as an important indicator of a community college’s stewardship.

Essentially proponents of (“right to fail”) philosophy argue that, as adults, students have the freedom to choose courses even if there is a low probability of succeeding in these courses. This philosophy . . . is based on the concept of freedom and a process of decision-making. . . . In making a good decision—a truly free decision—an entering student needs to know what his/her strengths and weaknesses are as well as interests and goals, the courses available at the college, and the standards and requirements of the institution. Without an appropriate understanding of these factors, decision-making is a guessing game and little true freedom is present.27

And in 1999, Grubb captured the evolution of thought on open door policy, the core of which is still present in the modern student success and postsec- ondary completion agenda:

The tactic of blissful indifference has emerged in the past in discussions about the “right to fail.” In the early 1970s . . . a debate ensued about whether the responsibility for success lies with students or with the colleges themselves. . . . Over time the discussion about the “right to fail” has moder- ated, replaced by a more sophisticated discussion about what to do about high rates of noncompletion.28

The Completion Agenda The roots of the modern completion movement can be traced to the early 1980s and the dire predictions that America was not positioning itself to compete well in the global marketplace because foreign students were out- performing American students and America’s place as the world’s preemi- nent superpower was being threatened. The first report in a period of three 12 COMMUNITY COLLEGES AND THE ACCESS EFFECT decades to attempt to communicate the importance of raising American educational standards and achievement was A Nation at Risk in 1983, the strongly worded address to the American people from President Ronald Reagan’s National Commission on Excellence in Education. This excerpt from the opening page report aptly captures the tone of the piece:

If an unfriendly foreign power had attempted to impose on America the medi- ocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war. As it stands, we have allowed this to happen to ourselves. . . . We have, in effect, been committing an act of unthinking, unilateral educational disarmament.29

Though many reports like A Nation at Risk followed, 30 years later, America continues to be surpassed by an increasing number of foreign com- petitors on many important academic performance measures. After the turn of this century, a series of education initiatives were founded with a specific focus on improving the performance outcomes of those entering college underprepared and closing academic achievement gaps between America’s low-income and/or minority students and their affluent and/or white peers. The most ambitious was Achieving the Dream, a community college collab- orative funded initially by the Lumina Foundation and eventually supported by an array of funders across the nation. By 2011, Achieving the Dream reported 160 colleges in its membership, the vast majority being public com- munity colleges in nearly half of the states in the Union. Each participating institution was charged with creating a sophisticated, cohort-based student tracking system that allowed the institution to determine what happened to each enrollee entering college for the first time. Based on this “culture of inquiry,” colleges worked to identify critical weaknesses in the chain of stu- dent progression through degree programs and to develop responsive inter- ventions to improve student success. One of the most useful by-products of Achieving the Dream has been the development of a multi-college database that demonstrates in graphic detail what is happening to students who enter community colleges underpre- pared. Some discoveries are encouraging. For example, the data showed that if a student tests into developmental coursework and is able to successfully complete the prescribed sequence of precollege-level courses, that student is as likely to complete a degree program as a student who entered college with no developmental needs. Studies have also found that if a student’s path through developmental courses can be accelerated, there is increased likelihood that the student will stay enrolled and progress into college-level work.30 But for those who enter college at the lowest levels of remediation, the data are sobering. For most community colleges, the lowest level of remedial math essen- tially consists of basic arithmetic—reviewing and mastering the concept of whole numbers, elementary numeric functions, decimals, fractions, percent- ages, etc. Community colleges typically offer three or more levels of math OPEN ACCESS IN HIGHER EDUCATION 13 remediation, with the higher courses covering basic and intermediate alge- bra, in preparation for the introductory level of college mathematics, which traditionally has been college algebra. A study conducted by University of Texas professor Byron McClenney for the Texas Commission on Higher Education showed that, despite remediation efforts, only three of ten stu- dents who entered the state’s community colleges deficient in mathematics completed any college-level math within four years of enrollment.31 Based on data from the Community College Research Center (CCRC) at Columbia University that looked at students enrolled in Achieving the Dream colleges who tested into the lowest level of developmental math, 17% never enroll in their first developmental course, and 66% failed to complete the devel- opmental sequence. Of the 17% who did complete the developmental math requirements, only 10% of the original cohort who tested into developmental math passed a college-level math course within three years of entering.32 When a similar analysis was conducted at a community college at which one of the authors worked, it was discovered that no student who entered the college at the lowest level of math preparation had ever graduated with an associate’s degree, a reality that has been anecdotally confirmed by faculty teaching at other institutions, as well. For these numbers to be meaningful, however, they need to be reflective of a significant student population—and they are. A Carnegie Foundation study found that of every 1000 students entering community colleges, 59% tested into developmental math, and of these, 190 or 19% were placed in the lowest level of remediation.33 With 1.3 million students entering community colleges in 200934 as first-time freshmen, this means that 247,000 students were referred to the most basic level of math – of which, only 24,700 would finish the developmental math sequence and a college math course by 2012. The remaining 222,300 spent hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayer dollars through federal financial aid and local and state tax dollars that sig- nificantly underwrite the true cost of attendance in addition to possibly per- sonal funds. They failed to achieve any degree of success in their coursework, and left college either with wasted Pell grants and/or significant personal debt, precious time expended, and nothing to show for their experience but a transcript communicating failure to the outside world.

A Return to Laissez-Faire Access Low completion rates at our nation’s community colleges eventually gar- nered the attention of state and federal governments, as well as organiza- tions and foundations focused on improving postsecondary completion rates. Complete College America (CCA), for example, is a nonprofit organi- zation with the mission of “work(ing) with states to significantly increase the number of Americans with quality career certificates or college degrees, and to close attainment gaps for traditionally underrepresented groups.”35 The organization published a controversial report in 2012 entitled Remediation: Higher Education’s Bridge to Nowhere in which developmental education 14 COMMUNITY COLLEGES AND THE ACCESS EFFECT was described as a “broken remedial system that stops so many from suc- ceeding,”36 One line that bluntly captures the opinion of Stan Jones, CCA’s founder and president, stated, “Remediation doesn’t work . . . We need to stop doing it.”37 With the practical motivation of improving completion— and philosophical and political disdain for reducing higher education access in any way—many completion advocacy groups favor inclusive strategies, like accelerating the underprepared into college-level coursework, as opposed to questioning whether or not a traditional degree pathway is best for all or most students currently enrolling. CCA established a set of postsecondary completion goals that lawmakers in more than 30 states have been persuaded to adopt. In 2012, the state of Connecticut—and a member of CCA’s Alliance of States—passed Senate Bill 40, an act that states, “No public institution of higher education shall offer any remedial support, including remedial courses, that is not embedded with the corresponding entry level course.”38 The bill essentially requires pub- lic colleges to embed basic skills instruction in college-level, credit-bearing courses, although it does allow for one semester of traditional, standalone, developmental education coursework for students determined through entry assessment not to possess basic skills at a level that would predict success in college-level work. Florida, another of CCA’s Alliance of States members, followed suit in 2013 and passed SB 1720, which gives community college students in that state the ability to refuse even a placement test, while devel- opmental courses are to be offered on an opt-in basis only. Jones suggested in an article covering the Florida law that more states are likely to follow the lead of Connecticut and Florida and will stop community colleges from requiring students to enroll in developmental education courses.39 And so, admission policy at community colleges has come full circle: open access in the 1950s and 1960s, followed by strong concern over stu- dent success in the 1970s and the implementation of mandatory assessment and placement, and then an explosion in variety of developmental education approaches and enrollment from the 1980s to present day. Entering the sec- ond decade of the new century, many policymakers and politicians are now working vigorously to legislate the restoration of unfettered access to the community college as a viable strategy for increasing student success and postsecondary credential award. Yet, in a 2010 article questioning the heavy commitment of thin com- munity college resources to developmental activities, Michael Collins, now with Jobs for the Future, drew attention to some institutions wanting to do just the opposite—wanting to limit developmental education opportunities to students within a stone’s throw of being college-ready. Collins described the philosophy of thought this way, “Colleges are wondering: Is this an effective use of resources to allow someone with a 3rd grade reading level into a developmental education college course?”40 Developmental educa- tors at open door community colleges who teach the lowest-level courses will confirm that students regularly enroll who have virtually zero chance to exit the developmental sequence, qualify for college-level courses, and earn OPEN ACCESS IN HIGHER EDUCATION 15 a two-year degree, due to intellectual ability. Other students highly unlikely to complete a two-year degree may have sufficient intellectual ability and motivation, but enter with academic skills so low that it would take years— not semesters—to prepare them well enough to qualify for and succeed with a reasonable degree of independence in college-level courses. (For a peek at the range of ability present in many developmental classrooms, read Hoover and Lipka’s article The Second Chance Club.) 41 Where those engaged in redesigning developmental education have it absolutely right is that a postsecondary achievement crisis in this country involving students enrolled in developmental education courses undeniably exists. Unfortunately, institutional and/or structural obstacles at community colleges—while undeniably present and damaging—do not register as a close second to the primary cause of the high placement into and developmental education courses and subsequent low completion of postsecondary creden- tials. A common mistake made in attempting to identify the cause(s) respon- sible for low developmental education completion, for example, is assigning too much weight to length of developmental sequences. With its innumer- able entry/exit points, a lengthy pipeline of courses inarguably depresses completion by design. However, rare is the policymaker, administrator, or completion advocate who publicly acknowledges the very real impact on stu- dents’ completion chances of entering skills and aptitude. Because unintentional institutional impediments do exist, the myth has grown that the postsecondary success of students testing into the lowest levels of remediation is tragically blocked by a combination of poor structure and policy. But, can we really expect that adult learners still literally learn- ing to read and confidently compute whole numbers can quickly develop a cache of complex academic skills that has eluded them up to community college enrollment and then use them adeptly enough to earn a postsecond- ary credential? Too often, reviewers of developmental education data from open door institutions look at course success rates and assume a normal distribution of skill and ability among enrollees. Developmental educators at these institutions will confirm that the lowest courses in a sequence— besides ensnaring more skilled and able students who did not perform up to their potential on a singular, high-stakes placement exam, for example—also, by design, corral and enroll the students in the institution with the lowest skills and/or abilities. The high placement of high school graduates into basic reading, writing, and math courses, and their subsequent failure at community colleges across the nation, indicates a seriously underestimated issue: low student engagement and academic achievement in the K-12 years leading up to college entry. A significant factor compounding low completion rates is the co-enrollment of students with intellectual disabilities (ID) in low-level developmental courses designed to prepare them for eventual success in college-level courses, who in high school took a modified core curriculum of rigor less than the state requires of every other graduate. Schalock, Luckasson, and Shogren define ID as a specific type of developmental disability marked by three enduring 16 COMMUNITY COLLEGES AND THE ACCESS EFFECT elements: “limitations in intellectual functioning, behavioral limitations in adapting to environmental demands, and early age of onset.”42 In IDEA legislation, mental retardation, renamed intellectual disability after President Obama signed into effect Rosa’s Law in 2010, is defined as “significantly subaverage general intellectual functioning, existing concurrently with defi- cits in adaptive behavior and manifested during the developmental period, that adversely affects a child’s educational performance.”43 The first issue—low K-12 student engagement and subsequent low achievement—has been caused in part by promised access to Financial Student Aid (FSA) and the FSA-eligible curriculum at a nationwide net- work of low-cost community colleges. The unsupported enrollment of stu- dents with ID in developmental courses has numerous causes, which will be addressed in subsequent chapters. More importantly, both issues remain appallingly under-addressed.

Historically Restrictive Access As previously mentioned, not every state has modern legislative roots in laissez-faire community college admissions policy. While the majority of community colleges founded in the 1960s as open enrollment institutions maintain that status today, others sprung forth from statewide legislation, which plainly dictated that students admitted to credit courses were required to have either a high school diploma or the equivalent (like a GED)—clear evidence that in exchange for taxpayer support, those states’ junior colleges agreed to observe reasonable admissions standards for entering students, offer credit coursework at the postsecondary level, and generally be good stewards of the public financial support. In Missouri, for example, Senate Bill 7 of 1961 specifically charged the “state board” (now the coordinating board for higher education) with, among other things, “establish(ing) uniform minimum entrance requirements”44 for the state’s junior colleges. SB 7 allowed that “a junior college district be orga- nized for the purpose of offering junior college (13th and 14th year) courses”45 [emphasis added]. The law further stated about curriculum in a section par- tially entitled District to Provide College Courses that any “junior college district organized under this act shall provide instruction, classes, school or schools for pupils . . . who have completed an approved high school course”46 [emphasis added]. Missouri junior colleges—now called community colleges—were founded not as laissez-faire open access institutions, but rather as institutions designed to deliver genuinely postsecondary curriculum and, very specifically, to deliver it to those who had previously completed the state-approved secondary curricu- lum. According to one researcher, the 1961 legislation was informed by the long-standing practice—going back to the early 1900s—of requiring junior college or community college enrollees in the state of Missouri to be high school graduates in order to be considered for admission because the cur- riculum offered was intended to be post–high school or the first two years of a baccalaureate.47 OPEN ACCESS IN HIGHER EDUCATION 17

Other community colleges that advertise as open access institutions today have historical roots in enrollment philosophies that suggest unfettered enrollment was not always practiced, even if such practice is not sourced in legislation. In fact, while 95.4 percent of two-year public institutions self-described as observing “open admissions” in a recent report (and only 4.3% claimed to enforce “some admissions requirements”),48 in reviewing the admissions policies of randomly-selected community colleges in 25 geo- graphically disparate states, the authors found a wide range of admissions policies, though each institution claimed to be “open access,” “open door,” or some linguistic variation thereof. Almost all 25 institutions alluded to the fact that at least some of their programs restricted enrollment to students deemed qualified—often times these are allied health programs. There was great variety among these “open door” institutions in policy surrounding the high school diploma or equivalent. Though all 25 institutions claimed to be open access, the publicized admissions policies of 60 percent required a high school diploma, a GED, or achievement of ability to benefit on at least one designated standardized assessment to enter any credit course- work; while others required a high school diploma only for students not yet 18 years old. Some of the institutions specifically assured prospective students that no high school diploma or GED was needed to enroll in credit-bearing course- work if the student was at least 18 years old. One college greatly restricted enrollment for students without a high school diploma or GED to provi- sional enrollment in a small selection of applied vocational programs and required concurrent enrollment in adult education and literacy (AEL). Regarding dual enrollment for students still in high school, it was interest- ing to see that most institutions’ policies specified the need for such students to be in good standing at their high school with a recommendation from a high school official to enroll at the community college concurrently, sug- gesting that command over the high school curriculum is still interpreted as an important signal that students are likely to succeed at the community col- lege. The rare anomaly, one college’s website stated that any student in K-12 could take college-level coursework as long as they had permission from their parents and their school principal. This environmental scan reveals the likelihood that many community colleges still requiring the high school diploma or equivalent in their pub- licized admissions policies, yet practicing laissez-faire open access, are dis- playing on their websites the vestiges of unenforced founding legislation and/or restrictive past policy. From this limited sample of 25 community colleges across the country, it can be confidently inferred that there is no standard definition of open access that community colleges subscribe to and that enrollment policies vary widely. The shift to liberal admissions practice at community colleges that had any admissions restriction, whether legisla- tively or by policy, seems to have occurred quietly until the practice of open admissions came to be viewed by employees and community members as a historical fact. In all practicality, most community colleges today observe 18 COMMUNITY COLLEGES AND THE ACCESS EFFECT laissez-faire access, if for no other reasons than they are typically funded by enrollment and no one challenges the practice. In summary, not only is it untrue that community colleges have always operated as open door institu- tions, but it is also untrue that all community colleges founded in the mod- ern era were established as the entirely open access institutions they are now advertised to be. Most pertinent to this book, it is untrue that perpetuating unfettered access to higher education in America is key to solving our postsecondary completion challenges. In fact, with geographic and financial accessibility to higher education well-accomplished through a nationwide network of com- munity colleges, requiring absolutely no performance standard of students to enroll contributes to the serious, ongoing educational attainment issues America faces today. And, truly, as Jill Jacobs-Biden, wife of Vice President Joseph Biden, impressed in her 2007 dissertation on retention and addressing student needs: “The diverse nature of the students dictates that the original mission of the community college changes as the nature of the community college metamorphoses into the institution is it today.”49 Chapter 2

The Trouble in Tucson

Crushed by reduced public funding in the wake of the Great Recession of 2008, many four-year colleges, universities, and entire states—Colorado, Louisiana, Nevada, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and South Carolina, for example— elected to remand all developmental education activities to community col- leges, citing escalating costs and productivity goals as reasons for no lon- ger offering pre-collegiate coursework in those settings. Some community colleges, for the very same reasons, effectively instituted a floor to their college-bound developmental coursework and are referring students who test below an admissions standard to adult education and literacy (AEL) and/or other more promising programs on campus or in the community. Pima Community College (PCC) in Tucson, Arizona, serves as the nation’s most well-known and recent example of an institution adopting an admis- sions requirement to the Federal Student Aid (FSA)-eligible developmental education curriculum. Other community colleges to institute admissions standards have done so quietly, ostensibly to avoid the intense backlash Pima administrators and the board endured after they chose to communi- cate openly and frequently with their community leading up to the seventh- grade admissions requirement and to advertise the policy change to the world of higher education. When the Arizona state legislature reduced aid to PCC by $9 million in 2011 and the institution was faced with a 56 percent reduction in funding for 2012, then-chancellor Roy Flores announced in a bold piece penned for Inside Higher Ed that Pima was restricting access to its FSA-eligible developmental courses: “Pima spends more than $20 million a year on ‘developmental education.’ . . . These realities, and the ongoing economic crisis in Arizona, have led us to ask hard questions about how we can best serve our students.”1 In an article highlighting community colleges that had chosen to reduce programs for the reasons mentioned above, and one in which PCC was referenced, Kay McClenney, a leading community col- lege advocate and researcher, defined community colleges’ greatest modern challenge as determining which student populations to continue serving and how to serve them.2 20 COMMUNITY COLLEGES AND THE ACCESS EFFECT

Pima’s solution was to eliminate the lowest courses in the developmen- tal education sequence (an estimated 200 sections); reserve access for the remaining FSA-eligible curriculum to students who possessed a high school diploma or the equivalent and who achieved at least a seventh-grade–level equivalency in math, reading, and writing via the college’s placement test; and create a non-credit transition program initially called Pathways to Pima to replace the lowest levels of developmental education coursework elimi- nated. Flores stressed in a number of community forums held to address concerns and answer questions around the admissions change, “We’re not turning anyone away.”3 Flores also explained the various alternatives PCC had conscientiously designed to serve non-qualifiers to prepare them to qualify for the FSA-eligible curriculum in the future, as well as to improve service by matching students with other interests or needs with more effec- tive solutions either at the college or in the community. What some outspoken critics took issue with more than anything is that students only allowed to attend Pathways to Pima, later renamed the PCC College Prep Academy, would have to self-fund and would no longer be eligi- ble for FSA, though scholarships were available to the academy and Academy costs were nominal. Students were charged only $33 per 10-week period, with a prorated fee schedule applied to students who enrolled for less than 10 weeks. During their time in the College Prep Academy, students completed additional diagnostics to identify specific sources of deficiencies, engaged in online or face-to-face modules (access to the online program component accounted for the full $33/10 weeks charged to College Prep Academy stu- dents), attended free student success workshops, and took tests to demon- strate competency so they could qualify to retake the PCC placement test.4 Students who failed again to meet the seventh-grade basic skills threshold were allowed to re-enroll in the College Prep Academy, or could choose from attending AEL, some workforce development programs, or other postsec- ondary education opportunities in the greater community.5 College Prep Academy creators viewed restricting access to the FSA-eligible curriculum as a positive design feature in their program, specifically because it protected the severely underprepared from starting the clock on their lim- ited financial aid while still allowing them meaningful access to PCC. In the College Prep Academy, students still received quality instruction, along with the promise of unending opportunity to qualify for the remaining FSA- eligible curriculum and the benefit of getting connected with a number of postsecondary alternatives at Pima and in the community that were likely to serve some students better than the FSA-eligible curriculum. A highly-placed Pima administrator explained to one of the authors, “Students were testing into that first level of dev ed, getting that financial aid, and failing repeat- edly. Then, they were leaving, and we couldn’t get to them. We wanted to try to place them correctly and then try to get them to a successful place.”6 Not surprisingly, the admissions change met with sharp disapproval from some factions in the community, including a grassroots group called the Pima Open Admission Coalition made up mostly of former and retired THE TROUBLE IN TUCSON 21

Pima employees. However, others in the community—including current students—welcomed the extremely modest admissions requirement to access the taxpayer-supported FSA-eligible curriculum at a time of severe fiscal limitation. Support was especially gained when Pima officials shared PCC data that showed “students testing into the lowest levels of developmental education have virtually no chance of ever moving beyond remedial work and achieving their educational goals.”7 In the online comments following an article covering Pima Community College’s 2011 decision to install the admissions requirement to the remain- ing financial aid-eligible curriculum, a puzzled commenter asked, “How can a High School graduate someone with 7th grade level testing? If they test at less than 12th grade level, why are they getting a diploma?” Another bluntly replied, “One word: TUSD”8 or Tucson Unified School District. While stu- dents with basic skills significantly lower than those needed to succeed in college-level courses are awarded high school diplomas all over America, one group is particularly responsible for the enrollment growth of students with the lowest basic skills at community colleges over the past 20 years in a num- ber of states: students with intellectual disabilities (ID). In 2010 alone, 562 students who fit the special education reporting cat- egory of “mental retardation” were awarded standard high school diplomas in Arizona while students in that same category received zero certificates of completion, which in most states is a lesser credential created to certify accomplishments other than the academic achievement, like duration of time in a program, for example.9 Since Pima’s College Prep Academy would not begin until 2011, all 562 students with the diagnosis of mental retardation would have been eligible to enroll at Arizona’s community colleges by vir- tue of possessing a regular high school diploma. And because the state of Arizona allows high schools to award standard diplomas to students who meet their individualized education program (IEP) goals—even if the core curriculum they were enrolled in was modified—these students all likely qualified for FSA. It is entirely possible that some students in the federal reporting category of mental retardation earned their diplomas while enrolled in nonmodified curriculum by meeting the state of Arizona’s graduation criteria required of every graduate without an IEP; some graduates in the category of mental retardation may have only received accommodations for which they were eli- gible and may not have enrolled in a curriculum of reduced rigor, for exam- ple. It is, however, highly unlikely that all or even most of the 562 students in 2010 in the category of mental retardation who received a regular high school diploma met the state’s curriculum standards through enrollment in the nonmodified core curriculum. Grigal and Hart, postsecondary experts who serve students with ID, confirm that, “Typically, students with ID are provided curriculum modifications in secondary school.”10 It is much more likely that many, if not all, were awarded regular high school diplomas because each local school district in Arizona is separately granted the authority by the Arizona Department of Education to develop 22 COMMUNITY COLLEGES AND THE ACCESS EFFECT

“a course of study and graduation requirements for all students placed in special education programs” that makes “students placed in special educa- tion classes, 9–12, eligible to receive a high school diploma upon comple- tion of those graduation requirements.”11 Though this statement comes from Arizona’s current state department policy on graduation requirements, which first applied to the Class of 2013, the 2010 diploma numbers suggest that policy has been in place since at least then, and if reflective of national trends was introduced in the early 1990s. The practice of awarding high school diplomas for meeting IEP goals on modified curriculum could hardly be more established in Arizona. Between 1999 and 2011, Arizona awarded 3,392 standard high school diplomas to students in the category of mental retardation and zero certificates of com- pletion to students in that category.12 Like many community colleges in the same situation, for over a decade (and, again, probably closer to 20 years going back to the early 1990s), Pima was enrolling in their FSA-eligible courses students who previously self-identified as intellectually incapable of succeeding in the state-required high school core curriculum. Most, if not all, of these students who enrolled at community colleges would likely test into the lowest developmental education courses, the sole purpose of which was to prepare students for eventual success in college-level courses. It is very telling that Pima decided in its admissions change to force stu- dents to demonstrate ability to benefit both by possessing a high school diploma and by achieving minimum placement test scores. Many commu- nity colleges just use placement scores to guide enrollment of students. By also requiring a minimum placement score to enter the FSA-eligible cur- riculum, however, Pima was obviously attempting to mitigate the negative effects of a quiet secondary policy practiced in many states: indiscriminate award of the standard high school diploma. Pima maneuvered to close the high school diploma enrollment loophole so that a diploma alone would no longer automatically qualify students for the FSA-eligible curriculum— a move that was also undoubtedly made to limit the loss of FSA associ- ated with the school and to honor the federal FSA eligibility regulation that strictly requires recipients to be in possession of a legitimate high school diploma or the equivalent. Flores revealed that the change in Pima’s admissions policy was also based on ethical stewardship—not just to taxpayers, but also to students:

As our outcomes data show, some people who come here simply have not received the education needed to succeed in college. To admit those men and women—some of whom have the equivalent of no better than a middle-school education—and accept their tuition payment, knowing that they have virtu- ally no chance of becoming college-ready, is callous at best.13

David Longanecker, president of the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education, and former assistant secretary for postsecondary educa- tion in the U.S. Department of Education, lists the following as his top three THE TROUBLE IN TUCSON 23 higher education interests: “access and equity; promoting student and insti- tutional performance; (and) finance.”14 Longanecker posted this, a partial excerpt from his full comment, following Flores’ article, False Hope, in which Flores unapologetically announced Pima’s admissions change:

Kudos to President Flores for his honesty and rationality. To those who believe his approach belies the open access mission of Community Colleges, access to failure is simply not access at all, and a one in twenty chance of success can’t be seen as anything but failure. If we can’t serve students, we deserve to let them know that.15

Explained Flores in the article:

These realities are creating a hard choice for us: fund developmental education programs with a poor track record, or successful occupational education and other programs aimed at those most desperate for our help. Asked to do more with less, Pima understands that it can no longer be all things to all people. We recognize that, first and foremost, we are a college. In establishing the college, the people of Pima County sought to create an institution of higher learning where students respect the value of education. Responsible gover- nance demands that we direct our limited resources where our constituents have directed us, and where our money will have the best chance of doing some good.16

Whether or not Flores was aware of it, installing a performance require- ment to access the remaining developmental education curriculum moved PCC closer to compliance with Arizona’s founding community college legislation. Arizona’s 1960 Senate Bill 43 defines a junior college as “an educational institution which provides a program . . . beyond the twelfth grade of the . . . high school curriculum or vocational education, including courses . . . beyond the basic education courses for adults”17 [emphasis added]. In 2012, charges of improper management of mission change (by institut- ing the seventh-grade standard) and serious charges of unethical conduct by leadership unrelated to the changed admissions policy were registered by individuals and at least two community groups with Pima’s accrediting body, The Higher Learning Commission of the North Central Association (HLC), which led to an investigation and subsequent two-year probation. HLC’s report prompted Paul Fain to describe PCC in early 2013 as being embroiled in a “deep accreditation crisis.”18 At the time of this writing, Pima’s accreditation was still very much at risk, and PCC was, at last check, writing apology letters to the community to satisfy the demand of the HLC, according to the Arizona Daily Star.19 Irony of all ironies, Pima administrators and board members were, in part, taken to task for designing and implementing an approach nearly identical to the redesign recommended by Colorado’s Developmental Education Task Force and adopted in 2013 by the Colorado State Board for Community Colleges and Occupational Education.20 Colorado’s approach featured some 24 COMMUNITY COLLEGES AND THE ACCESS EFFECT of the same postsecondary alternatives as Pathways to Pima, and sported an admissions feature that, at institutional discretion, refers students testing at the lowest levels into a non-credit preparatory experience—Soft Landing (English) and Assessment Prep (math)—designed to prepare students for successful retest on the placement instrument. An official with the Colorado Community College System shared her understanding with one of the authors that only one institution planned not to employ the Soft Landing feature and confirmed that Colorado’s redesign was an attempt to accomplish exactly what Pathways to Pima was designed to: conscientious reservation of financial aid for adequately prepared students and more effective address of students whose needs were unable to be met in the developmental education classroom.21 The Colorado Developmental Education Taskforce was convened in 2011, during the time Pima was solidifying its plan to offer a host of alter- natives to students who didn’t qualify in the future for the FSA-eligible curriculum. Either the state-wide Developmental Education Taskforce of Colorado was aware of and thought so admiringly of Pima’s approach that it modeled a critical part of its redesign effort after Pima, or Pima’s solution was so redeeming that Colorado community college educators and admin- istrators independently came up with a similar redesign. Either way, the installation of a performance requirement to access the FSA-eligible cur- riculum is obviously viewed by more than a few qualified community col- lege educators and policymakers as a reasonable solution that will enhance postsecondary student success by simultaneously protecting students’ inter- ests and public funds. Even more interesting, unlike Arizona’s enabling community college legis- lation, which clearly defined community college curriculum as being beyond the twelfth grade, Colorado’s 1967 community college legislation could not have more clearly favored open admissions by declaring its two-year colleges were to conduct “occupational, technical, and community service programs, with no term limitations and general education, including college transfer pro- grams, with unrestricted admissions”22 [emphasis added]. Colorado’s strong commitment to unrestricted community college admissions was reified in 2012 in statute C.R.S. 23–60–201, which reads, “No college shall impose admission requirements upon any student;”23 Arizona’s SB 43, on the other hand, has had no revisions to the requirement of post–twelfth-grade cur- riculum. So, at the time of this writing, the entire state of Colorado—with a long and enduring legal history of laissez-faire open admissions policy in its two-year colleges—was celebrating its decision to allow community colleges to observe a performance requirement before allowing students access to the FSA-eligible curriculum, while PCC was strongly reprimanded for doing the same. One could argue that the Arizona law restricts only curriculum and not enrollment; even so, FSA regulations restrict fund applicability both by curriculum and by prior student academic performance—both FSA stan- dards, which will be detailed more in chapter 6, are much higher than the seventh-grade performance requirement PCC temporarily implemented. THE TROUBLE IN TUCSON 25

HLC is also the accrediting body for all of Colorado’s community col- leges.24 Will Colorado’s Soft Landing and Assessment Prep bring PCC-level scrutiny for a statewide mission change? It would be a shame if it does, because PCC’s and Colorado’s similar plans to institute modest admissions criteria to the FSA-eligible curriculum represent a positive step in the direction of the fiscally and socially sound twenty-first-century community college enroll- ment policy. Unfortunately, the HLC response to Pima will likely discourage community college administrators with an ounce of self-preservation from taking bold steps to increase standards and student expectations, which will perpetuate “right to fail” culture and continue the varied and significant losses associated with it. Handled by an administration above reproach in every other way—and, even better, ensconced in a state-wide effort to promote student success, like Colorado—Pima may not have drawn nearly as much accreditation fire by applying a modest admission standard to the FSA-eligible curriculum. It appears there was public support for the establishment of minimum stan- dards at Pima to the FSA-eligible, credit-bearing curriculum. Comments following local articles covering the Pima case reveal a healthy dose of unvar- nished public incredulity that anyone would believe a seventh-grade mini- mum skills requirement to a college-preparatory, tax-supported, FSA-eligible curriculum to be an unreasonable expectation—especially in an environment of heightened fiscal and educational accountability—and especially when all interested students were still allowed access to Pima facilities, activities, cur- riculum, and instruction designed to prepare them to access the remaining developmental courses, and connections to meaningful postsecondary alter- natives. If anything, it can be argued that Pima’s seventh-grade performance threshold was drawn too low because the lowest-skilled students who met the new placement standard would have been either placed in FSA-eligible courses at least at the ninth-grade level or allowed to improperly apply FSA funds to coursework beneath the nithth-grade threshold, a violation of FSA regulations.25 The trouble in Tucson is not that the admissions standard Pima implemented was too strict; it’s that it was far too lax. This page intentionally left blank Chapter 3

The Price of Completion at Any Cost

In April 2012, the Center for Postsecondary and Economic Success released a report revealing that the United States was still losing ground interna- tionally in postsecondary credential attainment. Report authors Prince and Choitz, however, predicted that if national completion goals could be achieved by 2025, extraordinary economic returns would be realized, to the tune of $67 billion generated that year in federal revenue and $64 billion in state revenue, far exceeding the estimated $9.8 billion in federal and the $21 billion in state investment in postsecondary education.1 Gaudy financial returns like these grab the attention of those looking to stimulate economic growth and permanently put the worst recession in modern history behind them, and so postsecondary enrollment and completion remains a high national priority for the political and other leaders held most responsible for America’s economic health. After Pima’s new admission standard went into effect, Fall 2012 enroll- ment of full-time students in developmental education coursework went down 30 percent from the previous fall, compared with only a 10 percent downturn in the general student population over the same time period. Pima also reportedly experienced “a dip of 28 percent for faculty members who teach remedial courses,”2 in line with the developmental education enroll- ment drop. Intuitively, to many, a policy that would limit enrollment in any way is at direct odds with increasing postsecondary completion. For that reason and others, legislators and policymakers, clamoring the most for the award of more postsecondary credentials, continue to push open access at the nation’s community colleges as central to success in every postsecondary completion plan. Instead of mourning the 30 percent enrollment drop of the lowest-skilled students in developmental education at Pima, however, it should have been celebrated that students unable to demonstrate possession of basic skills equivalent to the seventh grade were not given access to the Federal Student Aid (FSA)-eligible curriculum, but provided instead with a host of resources and alternatives to help them prepare for future admission or for other kinds of postsecondary success without sacrificing their financial aid eligibility in 28 COMMUNITY COLLEGES AND THE ACCESS EFFECT the long term. It is true that some community college students are misplaced into developmental education by overreliance on one high-stakes placement test. It is also true that some students in developmental education can suc- ceed in college-level courses with integrated basic skills instruction and other kinds of supplemental support. It is no less true that others, however, would benefit more from a dedicated, contextualized developmental educa- tion experience before being allowed into college-level courses. And it is exceedingly true that still others with extremely low skills are inappropriately placed in developmental education courses on a college-degree path when they would be better served in other postsecondary settings with different approaches and sometimes even different end goals. Instead, two approaches favored by those strategizing to reach national completion goals are to accel- erate low-skilled students into college-level courses—even with embedded support—and to employ performance funding, both dangerous directions for American higher education. Taken together, these practices will lower academic standards, artificially plump completion, and in many ways drive our country closer to becoming a historical also-ran.

Casting Developmental Education as an Impediment The field of developmental education has been relentlessly and unjustifi- ably disparaged in recent times, and sometimes by those lacking the critical exposure to and experience with developmental education to make well- informed judgments. Policy group, Complete College America (CCA), for example, contributed the sensationalistic report titles Time Is the Enemy and Remediation: Higher Education’s Bridge to Nowhere, the latter of which described developmental education on the front cover as a “broken system.”3 MDRC released a 2011 report on developmental education entitled Unlocking the Gate. Senator Beth Bye from Connecticut likened developmental educa- tion to a “brick wall.”4 Bill Gates’ opinion? “Take remedial math, which is an absolute disaster. What destroys more self-confidence than any other educa- tional thing in America is being assigned to some remedial math when you get into college, and then it’s not taught very well.”5 The AACC’s own 21st Century Commission on the Future of Community Colleges—with one token community college professor in the group of 39 contributors,6 most whom were either current CEO-level community college administrators, comple- tion advocates, or four-year researchers or policy experts—described devel- opmental education as “dysfunctional”7 and “all too often a burial ground for student aspirations.”8 Such polarizing language fails to capture the whole truth and, therefore, ultimately leads us away from effective solutions. Some of the most sage, yet widely disregarded, advice to completion advocates redesigning twenty-first-century developmental education comes from Dr. Hunter Boylan, director of the National Center for Developmental Education. In the early pages of What Works: Research-Based Practices in Developmental Education, considered the unofficial developmental educa- tion bible by practitioners in the field, Boylan imparted in a section devoted THE PRICE OF COMPLETION AT ANY COST 29 to managing expectations that, “Best practice institutions go to substantial lengths to make sure that everyone understands what developmental educa- tion can and cannot do”9 [emphasis added]. Instead, insufficient knowledge of the history, purpose(s), students, and even limitations of developmental education—especially among stakeholders and policymakers outside the community college, but even among those within the institution—has led to many errant interpretations of student success data and misguided criti- cism of the enterprise. Enemy. Gated. Broken. Brick wall. Dysfunctional. Disaster. Bridge to nowhere. Burial ground. Senior research analyst for the U.S. Department of Education Clifford Adelman ultimately tied the divisive rhetoric to blind allegiance to the completion agenda and explained that, “As a consequence, what often pours out are scare stories that make for good press and bad policy. The bad data-driven scare story, in fact, has become the preferred narrative.”10 Developmental education has been especially painted with the broad brush of failure by completion guardians who believe that maintaining open admissions at our nation’s community colleges and freeing low-skilled students from assignment to developmental education constitutes sensible completion strategy. Implicit in the arguments of developmental education critics are many false assumptions, chief among them that most students cur- rently enrolled in developmental education would be much better served by enrolling in college-level coursework with embedded support. That assumption, prompted by the realization that life events have a greater chance of derailing completion the longer a student remains in college, has led some completion advocates to herald the “strategy” of racing low-skilled students through higher education as an acceptable way to increase American postsecondary credential award. In the article What’s Wrong with the Completion Agenda—And What We Can Do about It, Debra Humphreys acknowledged the role the American economy has played in unwise strategy selection. Where acceleration is being supplied as the answer to every completion problem, even when it is clearly not in the best interest of the academic development of a student, Humphreys observed, “Unfortunately, (the completion agenda) has become too narrowly focused; whereas society and the economy need ‘more and better,’ policy leaders are trying to deliver ‘more and cheaper.’ ”11 In the words of completion advocates, speed to completion is paramount while learning outcomes are inadvisably assumed and/or tragically deem- phasized. Michael Baumgartner of CCA, for example, addressed a national audience of legislators and policymakers at the 2012 Council of State Governments conference about the role CCA believes performance fund- ing in higher education should play in every state by advising, “We’ve got to be looking at moving those students along because leaving students with debt and no certificate or degree is not beneficial to them. . . . We need to incentivize institutions to . . . find the right strategies to get (adult students) through”12 [emphasis added]. Using the example of someone pursuing “a two-year nursing certificate,” Bill Gates declared, “We owe it to every American to make it pretty darn easy 30 COMMUNITY COLLEGES AND THE ACCESS EFFECT for them to get through that system.”13 The corrosive effect on lifelong learn- ing of this CCA statement is worse for it having appeared in a policy brief at President Obama’s first Summit on the Community College: “With so much at stake, today’s students need to finish their studies as soon as possible to get on with life.”14 In the same brief, CCA argued that, “Today’s students need less time on campus.”15 CCA was referencing the fact that many community col- lege students are overworked and/or their responsibility for dependents con- flicts with meeting the demands of a full-time student pursuing, for example, a traditional college degree. Undeniably, all of these variables negatively impact completion. But, the combination of choices and life circumstances that lead many students today to have less time for postsecondary education does not change the reality that they are not in need of spending less time on campus— faculty reviews and student performance data suggest that for many fragile stu- dents, in fact, much more time is needed. Yet, the message received by students from many of the current education reform strategies is that higher education is a burden—an obstacle—in life, which will get infinitely better the moment that odious, onerous degree is out of the way. Keeling and Hersh decried the nation’s completion obsession in 2012’s We’re Losing Our Minds, and warned that “In America today, higher edu- cation is using the wrong touchstone for decision making.”16 They even tapped the industrial term “throughput”17 to accurately describe the over- zealous attempts of those outside the academy to influence faster and faster processing of undergraduate students. The authors spend their book rightly advising that bold cultural change needs to be passionately adopted by the academy so that undergraduate learning once again becomes an institu- tion’s utmost priority and is considered in every institutional decision so that college students will not be caught “sitting passively . . . while simply finishing the growth of long bones.”18 And while they are absolutely right about the need to raise undergraduate education standards, any power the faculty hold that they might draw on to create the “powerful wave of new, higher expectations . . . washing across our campuses”19 that Keeling and Hersh called for is further annulled every time another higher education funding source gets tied to completion metrics while college-level course rosters overflow with grossly unprepared students. That many politicians and education reformers share an audacious, econo- metric view of a college degree as a product that students and taxpayers pur- chase as opposed to an educational experience that is paid for, which results in a degree when it is earned by the student, is hardly shocking. CCA’s guid- ing philosophy, Where We Stand, for example, boldly advertises:

In America, our states are most responsible for the education of their citi- zens. . . . States have the power and responsibility to demand more from higher education . . . (and) they have an obligation to do so. After all, between direct financial support to schools and financial aid to students, state taxpayers are the majority investors in public colleges and universities. We should give (taxpayers) more of what they want: college graduates.20 [emphasis added] THE PRICE OF COMPLETION AT ANY COST 31

Will taxpayers remain placated, though, when they realize their elected officials allowed and contributed to the dismantling of public higher edu- cation standards, which devalued their college degrees? Besides the idea of implementing institutional performance funding carrots, stick–like castiga- tory measures aimed at institutions and teachers are also trending among state legislators. Popular approaches to improving outcomes in K-16 include eliminating tenure/busting teacher unions, putting all or part of teachers’ pay in play based on students’ test scores, and even allowing student evalua- tions to influence teachers’ compensation.

Public Education Divestment and the Rise of Foundations To understand why some of America’s most zealous education reformers/ paid consultants promote strategies that grow higher education enrollment while endangering academic standards, it helps to know that among the most aggressive postsecondary completion advocates are those with private busi- ness interests that intersect with sizable education markets. As funding for public education ebbs, educational decision-making in many states is slowly being ceded to philanthropic foundations making hefty donations to state coffers, raising legitimate questions about the influence foundation activity is exerting on public education policymaking. At the beginning of The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation’s educa- tional grant-making activities just over a decade ago, educators committed to bettering their communities took notice of an unprecedented $350 mil- lion Gates Foundation grant program available to applicants nationwide. The near-giddy buzz in every teacher lounge was: “How can our school get a Gates grant?” The money was welcomed with open palms. In many cases, the money is now still accepted, but the difference is it is often vitally needed, partly because states felt emboldened to cut public education funding when money got tight, since foundations were stepping in at just the right time with huge checks. But, to borrow an economics expression: There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch. The Gates Foundation was the richest private foundation in the world before Warren Buffett added his $31 billion in 2006, a gift he admitted giving with blind trust in the ability of The Gates Foundation to make better philanthropic decisions than he could. With Buffett’s king-making gift, The Gates Foundation achieved unrivaled ability to force public policy change. As a result, K-16 education reform increasingly does not involve robust debate because the voices, experiences, opinions, and recommen- dations of professional educators are being systematically marginalized, replaced by foundations like Gates and others that have purchased the lim- ited seats at the public policy table. For several years now, foundations have demonstrated that with enough money and the right connections, it is fairly easy to not only maneuver around politically unconnected public educators who might challenge your motivations and policies, but to also do so with- out being detected. 32 COMMUNITY COLLEGES AND THE ACCESS EFFECT

Cassie Hall and Scott L. Thomas presented their paper, Advocacy Philanthropy and the Public Policy Agenda, based on Hall’s master’s thesis, at the 2012 American Educational Research Association conference. Hall and Thomas chronicled the simultaneous reduction in number of top higher education funder foundations and dramatic increase in the wealth and sub- sequent power of those that remain today. In their paper, they described the seismic operating shift of the new “megafoundations”21 from formerly sup- porting higher education change by funding institutions’ research to seeking influence over higher education by instead working directly with state and federal government officials and offices. Hall and Thomas described in this excerpt how much things have changed:

The emergence of “advocacy philanthropy” has resulted in the unabashed use of foundation strategies to influence government action, policy, and legislation— in their own words, foundations are taking on a leadership role, acting as a cata- lyst for change, identifying research areas, supporting best practices, engaging in public policy advocacy, enhancing communications power, using convening power, fostering partnerships, building public will, and employing the bully pulpit. . . . This behavior reflects a deviation from the established norms in higher education philanthropy, norms that generally created a distance between foun- dation activity and politics.22

In characterizing how critics of mega-foundations feel, Doug Lederman used the label “the two behemoths”23 to reference The Gates Foundation and the Lumina Foundation, while “completion mafia”24 was reserved for the collection of groups like CCA and similar operations that work in collab- oration with the mega-foundations. In fact, Hall noted in her research that “the strongest evidence of a new approach to higher ed philanthropy comes in the lists of the think tanks and other ‘intermediaries’ the funds support”25 [emphasis added]. The charge from foundation critics? That collectively these consortiums “have hijacked the national agenda for higher education and drowned out alternative perspectives.”26 One common complaint in higher education—especially among faculty—is not that no good comes from these groups’ efforts, but rather that many untested and potentially danger- ous policy recommendations are being advocated for by those without back- grounds in education and feathered in—whether intentionally camouflaged or not—with solid policy and practice recommendations. Bill Gates was asked during a recent interview to respond to the skepti- cism that successful business people are qualified to direct policy that affects universities. Gates innocently replied:

Obviously, anything that has to do with universities is going to be figured out by people who’ve worked in universities, and it’s going to be piloted in universities. I don’t think there’s any business people who are just . . . walking over to a university and saying, ‘Hey, reorganize your university this way.’ I’ve never heard of that.27 THE PRICE OF COMPLETION AT ANY COST 33

Except, that is effectively what is happening to American higher education because Gates-funded and Gates-created advocacy groups, as well as other similar actors, are busily shaping state and federal policies that affect how public higher education institutions operate, frequently without involving professional educators in the process. A New York Times columnist tossed this log on the conspiratorial mega-foundation fire: “In some cases, Mr. Gates is creating entirely new advocacy groups. [The Gates Foundation] is bank- rolling many of the Washington analysts who interpret education issues for journalists and giving grants to some media organizations.”28 Because foundations operate as powerful tax shelters for the über-wealthy, they are the perfect tools for advancing the private agendas of the founders because they enable donors to handpick the public policy matters they direct their money to (healthcare, public education, energy)—hefty sums that, were they not sheltered, would be taxed and the proceeds used to support without restriction the many state and federal programs every other non-foundation- having American’s tax dollars support. Tax-sheltered foundations afford the super-rich, in other words, unparalleled capacity to use their weighty dol- lars not only to make the issues they have interest in rise to the top but also to increase the probability that any outcomes they desire will materialize through legislation and other policy, particularly by attracting partnerships in cash-starved states. The National Governor’s Association—to which all governors in America belong—has received funding from both the Lumina Foundation and The Gates Foundation in the past. Between 2009 and 2011, the Gates Foundation gave the National Governor’s Association Center for Best Practices over $2.3 million.29 The Lumina Foundation’s contribution to the National Governor’s Association during that same time period was over $1.5 million,30 to say nothing of the additional millions granted over that time directly to the departments overseeing higher education in many individual states. Hall and Thomas referenced the 2011 Grantmakers for Education (GFE) report, which acknowledged this about the particular style of advocacy philanthropy being employed by some its own players: “At the heart of these concerns [held by those inside and outside the edu- cational philanthropy circle] is a fear that philanthropy’s wealth provides disproportionate access and influence, and when coupled with the perceived lack of accountability of grantmakers, philanthropy’s voice may drown out the voice of the broader public.”31 In other words, what wins are the ideas of the folks with money. Going away, Hall and Thomas ask a very important question that at least some advocacy philanthropists would likely not want asked too loudly in the public square. “By advocating for public policy changes and short-cutting estab- lished state funding and governance structures, are foundations replacing, rather than enhancing, the role of states?”32 The answer has serious implica- tions for not only the quality, but also the continuation, of public education in America as we know it. 34 COMMUNITY COLLEGES AND THE ACCESS EFFECT

Positive social benefits can obviously flow from the more aggressive ways in which the new mega-foundations are advocating. In fact, both The Gates Foundation and the Lumina Foundation lay valid claim to an astounding amount and breadth of societal victories in their philanthropic win columns; both have undeniably accomplished a great deal more for humanity than the cumulative achievement of many other dedicated, smaller foundations. Still, the voices of critics expressing strong concerns about the power these foun- dations have gained and are using in public policymaking grow daily. Hall conducted interviews with five high-level philanthropy and higher education policy professionals about the outsized influence of the mega- foundations in policymaking that affects higher education. First, noted Hall’s interviewees, foundations lack accountability for the policies they work to place upon higher education. As one interviewee shared, “The most disturbing element . . . is that, in America, we elect officials to determine the direction of the country, yet foundations are working to set the pub- lic policy agenda. Foundation officials are not elected, foundations do not pay taxes, and there are no accountability or transparency measures. It’s not that they shouldn’t have a voice, but trying to direct government is another thing.”33 As former U.S. Secretary of Labor and current Stanford political science professor, Rob Reich, wrote in a publication on the matter, “Foundations have no electoral accountability. . . . (They) are the voice of plutocracy.”34 One of Hall’s interviewees touched on Reich’s general con- cern by pointing out that the experiences and knowledge of the affluent persons running the foundations may or may not best position them to shape effective policy about others who do not belong to those elite groups holding power and money. Reich agreed that even in a best-case scenario the effect of the affluent acting as social engineers is that “. . . public goods funded by foundations will represent the diverse preferences of the wealthy, not of the wider citizenry.”35 More than one of Hall’s interviewees complained that grant winners in previous eras directed the research supported by grantors before advocacy philanthropy upended the process of grant-making competitions. Grantors involved in educational advocacy now increasingly award grants to those who agree to carry out the grantors’ prescribed research plan. As one interviewee said, in addition to having an agenda, foundations engaged in advocacy phi- lanthropy “have strategies that they are interested in playing out to pursue that agenda. They are identifying organizations to conduct them.”36 That process can be observed in the many public educational organizations receiv- ing financial support from The Gates Foundation to carry out same or similar policy advocacy in line with the foundation’s goals or write whitepapers and reports on same or similar assigned topics, for example, to create the appear- ance of a confluence of findings and policy recommendations originating from independent entities. A recent Chronicle of Higher Education article, The Gates Effect, described The Gates Foundation as not “just (jumping) on the bandwagon; it has worked to build that bandwagon in ways that are not always obvious. . . . The effect is an echo chamber of like-minded ideas, arising THE PRICE OF COMPLETION AT ANY COST 35 from research commissioned by Gates and advocated by staff members who move between the government and the foundation world.”37 Many of the loudest, seemingly independent, voices in higher education reform today can be traced back to heavy funding from The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, a fact little known to busy legislators, policymakers, and educators who are approached by these groups separately bearing “research” that, lo and behold, point to the same policy recommendations. In 2012, Superintendent John Deasy of the Los Angeles Unified School District found himself in the middle of one of the ugliest and most expensive public school board races in history, with then New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg sending $1 million across the country to a pro-privatization candidate backed by his Los Angeles mayoral counterpart, Antonio Villaraigosa.38 Deasy used his command of the floor in the first general session of the 2013 Association for Education Finance and Policy conference to plead for the depoliticization of education research, and complained to his audience that he is “regularly presented with research by advocates rather than researchers.”39

Complete College America Stan Jones, president and founder of CCA, is a former Commissioner of Higher Education in Indiana, and his foundation advocates tirelessly for, among more respectable completion policies, the adoption of performance funding by states and the elimination of developmental education require- ments/acceleration of low-skilled students into college-level courses. Jones was elected to the Indiana House of Representatives at the age of 24 after earning an engineering degree from Purdue University, and became a career politician in Indiana, including serving as that state’s commissioner of higher education for over a decade, before founding CCA in 2009.40 CCA’s reported 2009 revenue was $4.965 million,41 making two gifts from The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation’s exceeding $3.9 million in total42 responsible for approximately 80 percent of CCA’s critical first-year funding. The Gates Foundation money was granted to enable CCA to engage in “state efforts to develop and implement policies on college completion”43 and “to cultivate leadership and build consensus to dramatically improve college completion rates, particularly for low-income youth.”44 Jones went from earning more than $150,000 his first year as president of CCA45 to $329,422 just two years later.46 CCA began grant-making activity through its Completion Innovation Challenge in 2011, gifting $500,000 “innovation grants” to ten state govern- ment offices responsible for and/or capable of influencing higher education policy.47 Through its grant competition, CCA challenged “all 50 governors to implement innovative, high-impact reforms”48 to close the achievement gap for minority and low-income students. Ten million dollars in innovation grants were distributed, with half of the grant money awarded by CCA and the other matched by The Gates Foundation. In essence, though, the money was all or mostly from The Gates Foundation, since CCA’s grant-making 36 COMMUNITY COLLEGES AND THE ACCESS EFFECT ability was significantly underwritten by its heftiest funder. In 2010, CCA’s revenue dropped to a little over $2.2 million,49 with the Gates Foundation only contributing $300,000.50 However, in 2011—the same year CCA made those $500,000 innovation grants to ten different state agencies involved with overseeing and implementing higher education policy and/or legislation— the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation added over $1.7 million grant dollars to CCA’s ledger, again for “cultivating leadership and building consensus to dramatically improve college completion rates . . .”51 Following the 2010 passage of the not-surprisingly-named Complete College Tennessee Act legislation,52 CCA awarded the Tennessee Higher Education Committee one of its $500,000 innovation grants in 2011.53 In line with CCA’s hallmark recommendation to strongly rely on performance funding as a completion lever, Tennessee dropped its long-standing Performance Funding 1.0 model, which only added financial incentives to public institu- tions’ base funding through enrollment, and adopted a much more aggressive policy that makes institutions’ funding dependent entirely on productivity or what the Tennessee Higher Education Commission ironically referred to as “quality assurance.”54 Under the new Tennessee policy, colleges receive more funding for retaining and graduating low-income and minority students; so, in the state of Tennessee, the graduation of some students is now more finan- cially rewarding to institutions than the graduation of others. In 2011, Arkansas also passed performance funding legislation and leg- islated other CCA higher education reform recommendations.55 That same year, the Arkansas Department of Higher Education was named one of the ten Completion Innovation Challenge winners and received a total of $1 m illion—a $500,000 innovation grant from CCA and matching gift from The Gates Foundation. The Indiana Commission for Higher Education received one of the innovation grants from CCA in 2011 before passing per- formance funding legislation at the end of that year.56 The Kentucky Council on Postsecondary Education won a grant, as well, in August 2011, and by November recommended performance funding for adoption.57 By the end of 2012, the Georgia Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget, which was another grant award winner in 2011, had adopted performance funding.58 After CCA released its infamous Bridge to Nowhere report and went on “a crusade to improve remedial education, which it says is hopelessly broken and failing students,”59 Director of the National Center for Developmental Education Hunter Boylan attempted to warn others to be wary of the young, brash organization, saying “People assume that (CCA has) powerful connec- tions and avoid picking a fight with them.”60 The Gates Foundation tax forms do not lie, though; CCA has quite powerful connections. And Stan Jones has deftly used his established political connections to further his funders’ inter- ests by bringing their preferred educational policy recommendations not only before every governor in America but also to The White House. What one-year-old educational reform advocacy group could be so fortu- nate as to score an invitation from the president of the United States to craft a policy brief filled with policy recommendations for his first-ever Summit on THE PRICE OF COMPLETION AT ANY COST 37

Community Colleges to advise seasoned higher education professionals about what they should do next to “reinvent American higher education?”61 Stan Jones and CCA. That unparalleled political access and reach is impressive and is exactly what is needed to carry out narrow agendas affecting public interest issues. CCA’s tagline on its About Us webpage reads “It’s really about states . . . we’re just here to help.”62 At the beginning of the 2013–2014 school year, President Obama embarked on a two-day bus tour, advertising his higher education reform plan to “stop subsidizing schools that are not producing good results and reward schools that deliver American students of our future.”63 It should come as no surprise that featured at the top of President Obama’s policy agenda was “Paying for Performance,”64 the concept of financially rewarding institutions based on student outcomes, among other more reasonable, if not immeasurable, metrics. The president’s higher education reform approach also included rewarding institutions more for graduating Pell recipients, or low-income students, and plans to establish a college rating system whereby “taxpayer dollars will be steered toward high-performing colleges that pro- vide the best value.”65 To the Administration’s credit, President Obama’s plan explicitly ties student accountability to continued FSA eligibility; how- ever, when nothing is required for a student to enroll in higher education via the open access community college, poorly prepared students will continue to arrive and enter. In a performance funding environment, those underpre- pared and underperforming students—many who will be of the financially- prized Pell variety—are more likely to be waved through courses to ensure the continuous rise of completion rates so that funding will rise along with enrollment.

Advocacy Foundations Funding Research and Policy Papers One consistent target of Lumina Foundation grants is Teachers College of Columbia University, which houses the Community College Research Center (CCRC). CCRC has conducted and published much research and many policy papers on developmental education over the years, but was recently challenged by leaders in that field who asserted that some conclusions and policy recommendations reached by CCRC were unwarranted and potentially highly damaging to high-quality developmental education efforts. CCRC released a timely response to the criticism during the convening of the 2013 National Association Developmental Education conference,66 which prompted yet another retort in the Spring 2013 issue of the Journal of Developmental Education by the same developmental education leaders as before. Most legislators, policymakers, and those in higher education would likely describe CCRC as an independent research entity because, in fact, that’s how CCRC self-describes. On the CCRC landing page, the brief paragraph labeled “About CCRC” states the following: “CCRC is the leading inde- pendent authority on two-year colleges in the United States.”67 It is safe to say that in the eyes of many in the media, many politicians, and many even 38 COMMUNITY COLLEGES AND THE ACCESS EFFECT working in higher education, CCRC is seen as an independent, unbiased voice on community colleges and developmental education. The Lumina Foundation’s website links to several CCRC publications, but more importantly the Lumina Foundation’s Form 990s show a total contri- bution of $1.5 million to Teacher’s College of Columbia University between 2009 and 201168 for services like examining “the implementation and effects of performance funding.”69 As early as 2009, when CCA was founded, The Lumina Foundation was paying Teachers College of Columbia University “to examine effective policy and implementation design features that make performance funding systems more likely to be adopted by states.”70 In other words, Lumina wanted Teachers College of Columbia University not just to investigate how effective performance funding was, but also to establish how to increase the likelihood states would adopt the model being pushed by CCA, an organization heavily bankrolled by The Gates Foundation and also funded by The Lumina Foundation. The Gates Foundation also paid “Teachers College Columbia Univ” $1.8 million in 2009, $1.8 million in 2010, and over $2 million in 2011 for, among other things, support of “the development of high quality educa- tion coverage in the nation’s leading newspapers and magazines.”71 Between 2009 and 2011, Teachers College of Columbia University received over $7 million in combined contributions from the Lumina Foundation and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. In four years’ time, from 2009 to 2013, CCRC’s site of research shows 12 major research activities (publica- tions or presentations) devoted to performance funding, where either the Lumina Foundation or the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation were the pri- mary funders.72

Controlling Multiple Sources of Information In a 2010 Insider Higher Ed article entitled Consensus or Groupthink? Doug Lederman observed that one obvious problem with mega-foundations is that even when their ways of doing business are questioned, “concerns (about their influence) . . . are raised quietly, since rare is the higher education association or think tank or researcher that is not receiving checks from Gates, Lumina, or both.”73 Frederick M. Hess of the American Enterprise Institute, whose private nonprofit has received money from The Gates Foundation in the past “to influence national education debates,” admitted that, “We have a reason- able self-preservation instinct. There can be an exquisite carefulness about how we’re going to say anything that could reflect badly on a foundation,”74 an observation smartly cross-filed under “Don’t Bite the Hand that Feeds You.” Reich was more direct, calling grantees “supplicants.”75 Reich added, “Exaggerating only slightly, I’ve found that people who become foundation officers are often surprised to find themselves transformed into the smartest and best-looking people in the room.”76 The Gates Foundation’s brief public response to The Gates Effect piece through Director of Postsecondary Success Daniel Greenstein left unaddressed THE PRICE OF COMPLETION AT ANY COST 39 all of the concerns raised about the foundation in the extensive Chronicle of Higher Education piece, which was contributed to by an unheard-of seven writers. Instead, Greenstein counterpunched with the accusation that the Chronicle article’s authors failed to understand what was at stake. Greenstein justified his employer’s methods by advancing the singular explanation that low postsecondary completion is really due to higher education’s failure to adapt to the changing demographics and attendant needs of non-traditional students. Greenstein also concluded that because “90% of ninth graders and 80% of twelfth graders expect they will get a four-year degree”77 and because the working, non-degreed adult population with competing responsibilities continues to grow, the solution is to overhaul higher education delivery. The Gates Foundation solution? The system is broken. Time for a new system. Never mind that earning a traditional college degree takes considerable time and sustained commitment, even from the most motivated and well-prepared students, and that educational technology does not provide a solution for every non-completion concern and, in many cases, introduces new obstacles. CCA travels the nation influencing politicians and other key policymakers connected to higher education in each state. Connecticut’s SB 40 addressing college readiness and completion, for example, was passed less than a year after Connecticut Senator Beth Bye attended one of CCA’s sessions.78 In June 2012, CCA sent out an e-promotion to reinvigorate interest around their Bridge to Nowhere report released earlier that spring. The propaganda-esque call to action ended with this provocative and ominous question: “Is your governor reinventing higher education?”79 We assume this rhetorical question was meant to suggest to every educator reading that their governor already was reinventing higher education, which would then ideally inspire educators to get with the CCA/Gates completion program. But, instead of inspiring collaborative action, that question should strike fear in the heart of every American. Why would governors be unilater- ally reinventing higher education? Shouldn’t governors interested in higher education reform ideally want to collaborate more with experienced profes- sional educators and less with politicians and advocacy groups funded by bil- lionaires with business motivations that conflict with the public interest? Of course, not all legislators are ignoring public educators; many are doing an admirable job tempering outside influence and remain committed to doing what is right for their constituents. Unfortunately, too many elected officials, whether or not they realize it, are effectively working on behalf of private interests and against the interests of the public they were elected to serve. Another problem with questioning the agendas of self-fashioned educa- tional reformers is that the education and social issues to which they pro- fess dedication are utterly unimpeachable. Who could argue that improving postsecondary educational attainment rates isn’t among the most important issues in America today? Many educators are working in institutions that have accepted money from foundations involved in the reform effort, and may feel strange about openly questioning the funders who are “assisting” their cash-strapped institutions. Thomas explained, “There’s an element of 40 COMMUNITY COLLEGES AND THE ACCESS EFFECT

‘the dictatorship is wonderful as long as I’m in favor of the dictator.’ ”80 Thomas and Hall expressed concern not with the stated goals of the founda- tions, but rather the way in which they are aggressively engineering change in public policy matters. In discussing the problem of private money influ- encing public agendas, a friend of one author observed this about Gates and similar figures who wield money and power to address social issues in ways they believe best: “Bill Gates is revolutionary, much like George Soros and Michael Bloomberg, who want to affect the outcomes of various events. And there may be some good that comes from their actions; however, these are not social engineers who are applying an ethical problem-solving approach. These men are relying on other people to accomplish something, but not necessarily to solve a problem. And, along the way, these men acquire money, power, influence, etc. to apply to their next goal—whatever that may be.”81 Valerie Strauss of The Washington Post pointed out in a 2013 article entitled “Education Reform as a Business” that education now makes up 9 percent of America’s gross domestic product and, at $1.3 trillion, the for- profit education market now represents “. . . one of the largest U.S. invest- ment markets.”82 Far from being disinterested do-gooders, critics argue, the recent flock of billionaires with business interests in educational technol- ogy to educational reform are motivated primarily by market-cornering and profit-making, and for a variety of reasons view public education funding as a prized market frontier to conquer. Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg became the latest high-profile technology billionaire to join the corporate reformer ranks when he co-founded a political advocacy group with other technology leaders to legislatively change American education policy, in addition to taking on other areas of interest.83 In higher education, of course, the educational technology market is lit- erally without borders. Massive Open Online Courses (or MOOCs) with a global reach represent just one of the exploding technology-driven education and certification markets in which entrepreneurs are racing and jockeying with one another for control,84 placing their bets that a number of variables impacting American higher education, including domestic costs and foreign demand, will continue to grow web- and software-driven markets as com- paratively costly face-to-face instruction is squeezed out by packaged course delivery. Suffice it to say, many remain unconvinced that the growing list of bil- lionaires with indisputable business interests in educational technology are working to radically change public education through intense, organized reform efforts with no other motivation than advancing a more learned and equitable society. In 2010’s The Death and Life of the Great American School System, Diane Ravitch comprehensively detailed how America’s public K-12 education system is being systematically privatized through the combination of low public education investment and political push by foundations to redi- rect public funds to private control through, for example, the dismantling of “failed” public schools and subsequent replacement by voucher systems and loosely regulated, privately run charter schools, a topic she revisited in 2013’s THE PRICE OF COMPLETION AT ANY COST 41

Reign of Error: The Hoax of the Privatization Movement and the Danger to America’s Public Schools. On the K-12 scene, candidates in critical school board races around the country are increasingly financed by out-of-state education reformers with incontestable corporate interests who wish to advance private business agen- das by effectively privatizing public funds by promoting the closure of public schools under the pretense of improving public education. While serving as mayor of New York City, entrepreneur/media and technology mogul Michael Bloomberg donated millions of dollars to candidates in public school board races in California85 and to incumbent Tony Bennett in the 2012 state super- intendent race in Indiana,86 who a month after losing the Indiana race, was appointed the Commissioner of Education in Florida by that state’s governor.87 Bennett resigned from the Florida post less than 9 months later after emails surfaced suggesting data were scrubbed to improve the grade of an Indiana charter school founded by one of Bennett’s friends and campaign donors.88 All Bloomberg-backed candidates ran on platforms that would have directed public education funding to the comparatively deregulated, private setting of charter schools. In a growing mound of articles that question the financial motives of pri- vate foundations’ obsession with directing public education reform is David Sirota’s Getting Rich off Schoolchildren.89 Sirota asks how it is possible that anyone accepts the popular media narrative of “greedy self-interested teach- ers who don’t care about children” and believes the narrative of “the benevo- lent billionaire ‘reformers’ whose political activism is solely focused on the welfare of the kids,” calling that logic “idiotic.”90 Sirota writes:

It simply strains credulity to insist that pedagogues who get paid middling wages but nonetheless devote their lives to educating kids care less about those kids than do the Wall Street hedge funders and billionaire CEOs who finance the so-called reform movement.91

In his article, Sirota uses a recent series of events to link a Microsoft-based Washington state ballot to increase private charter schools—a trademark Gates Foundation–favored strategy—financially underwritten by Amazon and Microsoft, two technology companies that would be well-positioned to win the no-bid contracts awarded by the private charter schools they willed into existence. Private schools are technically outside the reach of laws and regulations that govern bid competition involving public funds, which spe- cifically exist to protect public assets from being spent in unregulated fashion in a non-competitive award scenario. In Sirota’s words, “Give ‘reformers’ credit; they have successfully hidden a venal investment strategy in the veneer of idealistic political activism.”92 This page intentionally left blank Chapter 4

The Perils of Paying for Performance

A survey of community colleges published in 2000 indicated that over half of states were still using enrollment-driven formulas as the basis for appropri- ating state revenue, with state revenues constituting the largest single source of income for the colleges in 39 states.1 Only ten states at that time reported using performance indicators as a factor in determining budget allocations, and in six of these, the performance-based allocation applied only to new revenue, a funding model innocuously labeled Performance Funding 1.0. With state revenues long stagnant and even in decline, there has been no new revenue to trigger the performance portion of these formulas. Thus, PF 1.0 has had no influence on either institutional behavior or student completion. As a result, some completion efforts—CCA, most notably—have pushed legislators to adopt more aggressive Performance Funding 2.0 models, which theoretically incentivize institutions to work harder at seeing more stu- dents through to completion of postsecondary credentials. PF 2.0 mod- els accomplish this by threatening institutions’ base funding (historically awarded at most community colleges based on enrollment or what is com- monly referred to in the jargon of higher education as “FTE” or “Full-Time Equivalent”) and, theoretically, force institutions to engage in activities and adopt policies that most positively affect completion. The problem with a PF 2.0 approach, however, is not that it won’t increase completion rates, it’s that it will. Inherent in PF 2.0 logic is the assumption that in the context of increased enrollment institutional quality and/or efficiency explains more low post- secondary completion than variables like student commitment, skill/ability, and/or preparation. CCA, for example, concluded that because “decades of increasing enrollments (have gone by) with virtually no increases in com- pletion rates,”2 higher education institutions must be overly focused on just enrolling students. Ignored by those interpreting causation where correlation exists is the considerable increase of risk factors inversely associated with stu- dent success and completion that naturally grow in kind with the expansion of college enrollment. 44 COMMUNITY COLLEGES AND THE ACCESS EFFECT

The introduction of PF 2.0 adoption to any state is usually made by well-intentioned legislators, who have been lobbied hard by academia out- siders promising that completion rates will improve. Despite a paucity of evidence proving the worth of performance funding, PF 2.0 advocates press on. Previous efforts in the 1990s by a minority of states to install higher education performance funding fizzled out after completion rates were not affected; though, critics attributed the less-than-desirable results to “fatal design flaws,”3 code for “not enough institutional skin in the game.” Earthy data proving performance funding improves completion rates at community colleges without sacrificing student learning are non-existent, if for no other reason than such funding models having only been recently instituted. And a number of papers expressing great concern over the unintended negative consequences of performance funding and questioning its effectiveness in improving completion were presented at the 2013 Association for the Study of Higher Education (ASHE) conference.4 Even so, data showing increased completion would only prove that a greater percentage or real number of students had been awarded degrees; the award increases alone—what PF 2.0 financial spoils are directly tied to—would not certify that academic rigor hadn’t been reduced en route to more pleasing data. As one comple- tion group enthusiastically endorsing performance funding admitted, “Unfortunately, direct evidence about student learning outcomes at present is uneven and limited. . . . For this reason, degrees and certificates are for now the best proxies available for measuring and comparing college level know- ledge and skills”5 Interestingly, states considered to be employing vanguard performance funding models have been so classified based on the extremity of their for- mulas, not because of any proven completion increases or, more importantly, student learning gains. In opposition to a Bill Gates presentation at a 2012 Washington Ideas Forum in which Gates insisted that low college gradua- tion rates are higher education’s biggest problem, one university professor responded, “I couldn’t disagree more. The biggest problem is that we are expecting colleges and universities to compensate for deficiencies that begin in the secondary school system. We are expected to hand degrees to students who are not prepared to learn—and now we are increasingly expected to pump them out faster.”6

That Sound You Hear Is the Sacrifice of Quality At the 2013 National Association for Developmental Education (NADE) conference, Dominique Raymond, director of Alliance State Relations for CCA, served as an invited panelist on a NADE Board–sponsored session dedicated to discussion around developmental education redesign and pol- icy. During the session, one of the authors asked Raymond if CCA had any concern that PF 2.0 would lead to a reduction in rigor, particularly because adjunct faculty members and others with virtually no job protection respon- sible for student success would be susceptible to pressure to pass students THE PERILS OF PAYING FOR PERFORMANCE 45 through. Raymond paused momentarily before admitting that, “There’s a part of the conversation about quality that keeps coming up,”7 something acknowledged by CCRC researchers, as well, who confirmed “the percep- tion held by faculty that the push to improve college completion rates—often driven by policies at the state and federal level—is at odds with their desire to maintain academic standards in the classroom.”8 Raymond quickly added with confidence, though, “To us, in policy, (the faculty) are the firewall. There’s no way there’s going to be an erosion in quality.”9 She went on to explain that her certainty was rooted in the belief that 50 years of enrollment expansion had not yet caused a reduction in higher education standards. Toward the end of Baumgartner’s presentation at the 2012 Council of State Governments conference, he stressed to state legislators how important it was for them not to identify predetermined levels of performance upon which funding could be secured. He urged them instead to adopt funding formulas that would “start from current institutional performance levels and allocate funds on the basis of year-over-year improvement.”10 In CCA’s ideal PF 2.0 scenario, then, community colleges—while being expected to maintain open enrollment—would interminably have their funding based on whether or not they bested the previous year’s student success metrics, creating greater odds for future loss as each victory reduces room at the top for future improvement. Baumgartner shared that monetarily incentivizing institutions to shepherd students through various credit levels or momen- tum points, such as 24 credit hours earned, 48, 60, etc., “are things that research shows help students progress quickly toward their degree.”11 Not concerned yet by the specter of lowered expectations? In advocating for higher education performance funding, a senior associate at the National Center for Higher Education Management Systems flatly stated the obvi- ous: “If you put the money where you want the results, it should, over time, happen.”12 Some states’ new performance funding formulas differentiate between higher education institutions based on mission; others make no concession for mission difference whatsoever. Some heavily touch base funding; others only incent with financial rewards beyond base funding. Some reward institu- tions more for Pell-eligible/low-income and/or ethnic minority completers; others do not incent to specifically address equity gaps. Some formulas pay institutions more the faster students complete; other states do not consider time-to-completion as a variable. No formula, however, guarantees that per- formance standards will be maintained as states increasingly slash higher education budgets and threaten public education institutions with perfor- mance funding hammers. In CCA’s how-to guide aimed at state officials wanting to institute performance funding is the suggestion to deliberately start small and grow the percentage of base funding “over time” because “if the percentage . . . is too high, policymakers inevitably face political pressure because the institution’s budget appears to be at risk.”13 Appears? Venerable St. Louis Post-Dispatch columnist Bill McClellan wrote the fol- lowing in Campus Funding ‘Fix’ Gets an ‘F’ in My Book, his evaluation of 46 COMMUNITY COLLEGES AND THE ACCESS EFFECT

Missouri’s 2012 decision to adopt only PF 1.0 for its public higher education institutions:

If funding is tied to retention rates, students will learn a false lesson. They will “learn” that the world does make allowances for people. Because, of course, for them it will. You get what you pay for, and if you pay for high retention and graduation rates, that is what you will get. Standards will inevitably go down. We will devalue public education.14

If possessing a piece of paper alone were enough to qualify Americans for the increasing proportion of jobs requiring highly educated workers in the future, then the strategy of financially incentivizing colleges to gradu- ate more students could be called brilliant. However, the intent of comple- tion agenda initiatives—each in its own words—is for states to “increase the number of high-quality college graduates within available funding to meet workforce needs and compete globally,”15 not ostensibly to force institutions to lower standards and award hollow credentials just to keep the lights on. To say the least, PF 2.0 could be characterized as flawed in terms of which variable in the education equation is being influenced and held principally responsible for improving student success. Gone are the days in America when some formal secondary schooling and a good work ethic ensured the masses lifetime employment and membership in the American middle class; the odds at success in tomorrow’s global economy depend more and more on Americans’ ability to compete in a knowledge economy. As Arum and Roksa reminded in Academically Adrift, “The attainment of long-term occupa- tional success . . . requires not only academic credentials, but likely also aca- demic skills.”16 Those with postsecondary credentials, therefore, should be in possession of both credentials and marketable skills, a promise that will wilt in an oppressive PF 2.0 environment. This was exactly Humphreys’ thinking as she pointed out the obvious danger in equating completion with student learning, writing:

Policy makers seem to assume that all students who cross some “finish line” have actually learned what they need to compete successfully in the global economy and contribute to rebuilding our democratic society. Abundant data suggest that this assumption is simply false. The truth is that colleges and universities are struggling to educate a larger population of students, many of whom are underprepared for and unmotivated to work hard at college- level learning at exactly the moment when society and the global economy are demanding even higher levels of learning from everyone.17

The atmosphere for American higher education standards to be lowered could not be riper, especially considering a growing number of adjunct fac- ulty with little-to-no job protection already make up around 85 percent of the faculty teaching undergraduate courses in community colleges.18 As one commenter sarcastically noted after an online Chronicle of Higher Education article on completion, “If quantity is the goal, we could simply THE PERILS OF PAYING FOR PERFORMANCE 47

*give* everyone a degree, and then (completion) would be 100%.”19 The commenter went on to reference a classic cartoon in which a king address- ing his commoners from a castle balcony proclaimed, “In order to improve the education of the people, I hereby award everyone a college degree.”20 McClellan ruminated on the many important lessons he personally learned from failing out of the University of Illinois before eventually transferring to Arizona State University and performing poorly again before rallying and finally graduating: “You should only get what you deserve. That lesson will be lost if we start . . . performance funding. Lowering standards will not fix higher education.”21

Other Unintended Negative Effects Associated with Paying for Performance Instead of improving teaching and learning, PF 2.0 will definitively have the opposite effect. Inter-school competition over valuable resources will temper the spirit of cooperation and collegiality between peers. Though the authors belong to state, regional, and national professional organizations teeming with members who constantly share their professional expertise and wisdom with one another, it’s not difficult to imagine when a performance-funding environment pits institutions against one another for life-sustaining finan- cial resources that this spirit of cooperation will evaporate. The unmistakable and perverted signs of protectionism will crop up: sanitized data, guarded instructional descriptions, glossed-over program details, and outright mis- direction. America will assume a place among the lowest-achieving nations as it chokes out knowledge-sharing—one of the greatest assets higher educa- tion activities offers this country and the world—by its own irrational policy design. In some states, performance funding scenarios call for budgetary sur- pluses to be directed to the community colleges in the state with the greatest increases on common student success measures. In theory, this should incen- tivize lower-achieving community colleges to try harder to increase student success rates; in reality, their future success will again be compared to the community colleges rewarded earliest for being successful and which now have more resources on which to improve student success. While certainly not every student success strategy requires money, it’s not difficult to see the potential for achievement gaps to grow in a state between community colleges over time due to compounding funding differentials. One pundit made the same clumsy suggestion on the federal level that student loan and grant increases should be funneled “to states that fare the best in moving students to graduation.”22 Over time, naturally, the citizens in the com- paratively underfunded states would lose out on funds, like federal grant competitions and employment opportunities related to quality of state and regional workforce, not because those citizens are less worthy, but because they live in historically underresourced states compared with those against which they are perpetually judged. As a result, institutions with even the 48 COMMUNITY COLLEGES AND THE ACCESS EFFECT slightest survival instinct will lower standards and increase completion, per instructions, in a PF 2.0 environment. A 2012 National Student Clearinghouse Research Center report on transfer and mobility illustrates still other problems associated with PF 2.0 environments. First, citing findings from Clifford Adelman’s The Toolbox Revisited: Paths to Degree Completion from High School through College pub- lication he authored when he was with the U.S. Department of Education,23 the authors cautioned that in performance-funding settings, community colleges may work actively to retain transfer-ready students until they reach certain momentum points or credentialing, even if such advising has the net effect of obstructing student progress. The researchers’ analysis also revealed, not surprisingly, particularly complex patterns of enrollment, transfer, and persistence of students at two-year institutions that “suggest that (a) lin- ear view of college access and success that focuses on the initial institution attended often fails to address the realities on the ground.”24 Finally, the report blamed blunt, unrefined accountability metrics, such as those used in PF 2.0 models that create competition between community colleges in the same state, for encouraging the institutional view of students “as a more or less uniform stream that simply enters and either completes a degree at the starting institution or not.”25 The overall takeaway is that PF 2.0 high-stakes funding formulas dressed in completion blinders have the tendency to promote overly simplistic, scal- able completion strategies so focused on producing data gains that they ulti- mately produce less-than-desirable educational outcomes for many students, even as success metrics may improve. CCA, the loudest voice in the country advocating for PF 2.0, for example, specifically coaches legislators around the country interested in PF 2.0 to “keep it simple . . . (and) start with a small number of explicit, easy-to-understand measures that are laser-focused on completion.”26 Considering the vastly different socioeconomic environments in which community colleges operate within a single state, too, using conveniently captured comparative data may unintentionally fail to reward some com- munity colleges for doing a better job than their peers for “moving students along” if students moving on earn their certificate or diploma at a future institution, for example. Especially with the state of the economy and cost of higher education, more baccalaureate-bound students are beginning their postsecondary careers at community colleges before transferring to four-year institutions and completing degrees. For the community colleges, transfer students who do not earn certificates or degrees are often counted as failures to complete in the data. While community colleges are currently working hard to continuously monitor the eligibility of students who earn the right combination of credits at their new four-year, some institutions, states and data systems are better at this than others. Therefore, in a PF 2.0 environ- ment, some will be advantaged over others from the start because of their superior data collection and reporting capabilities alone. THE PERILS OF PAYING FOR PERFORMANCE 49

The National Student Clearinghouse Research Center report concluded by recommending a fresh view of postsecondary enrollment be adopted “in which students are the unit of analysis and institutions emerge as stepping- stones along a diverse set of educational pathways”27 [emphasis added] and urging to all postsecondary stakeholders that “rather than focusing criticism on institutions when they fail to capture the entirety of each student’s edu- cational career, (a new view) would properly recognize all of the institutions that play a role in that career.”28 Yet, the data metrics driving PF 2.0 fund- ing models are so blunt that they stand to embody all of these concerns and reduce student success, as measured by learning. At the conference where Raymond assured skeptics that higher education standards were not in jeopardy in a PF 2.0 environment, a junior, tenure- track math faculty informed one of the authors that her department chair had just told her and her colleagues in a meeting that they would have to lower standards to increase course success rates. The faculty member vented to the author, “What am I going to do? I want tenure. If I resist, I risk my career. And we are under pressure to get more students through. We’ve tried redesign but it’s not good enough.”29 How many faculty members, when faced with penalties for not producing ever-escalating student success rates will stand their ground and maintain standards? How many with no job security will have little recourse but to pass whatever escalating number of students the administration informs them is required for them to be invited back to teach the next semester? A Christian proverb wisely instructs: “For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.”30 To rephrase this in cruder terms: Institutions will respond to what they get rewarded for, which is why PF 2.0 is such a dangerous feature to include in a plan that sincerely intends to improve student achievement.

Lessons from NCLB Fortunately, a modern public education reform model on a national scale exists that can assist in foretelling whether higher education standards are more likely to be lowered, maintained, or raised when escalating achievement is demanded annually and institutional operating funds (and/or performance bonuses and perks) are awarded based on unaudited, locally-controlled performance measures. The architects behind the 2001 Elementary and Secondary Education Act reauthorization, better known as No Child Left Behind (NCLB), are to be admired for their commitment to closing the vast achievement gap between affluent and/or white students and low-income and/or ethnic minority students in K-12. Unfortunately, though, because states were allowed to “write their own standards, pick their own tests, and decide for themselves how to define proficiency,”31 lower performance stan- dards than schools had in pre-NCLB days were often selected by policymak- ers for their state’s young citizens, to allow plenty of room for steady annual performance increases required by law. 50 COMMUNITY COLLEGES AND THE ACCESS EFFECT

When students’ math and reading proficiency rates, as judged by their NCLB-satisfying test scores, are compared with those on the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP), the NCLB audit commonly referred to as The Nation’s Report Card, staggering performance differen- tials are observed, confirming that states lowered standards to increase the odds of meeting the all-important NCLB requirement of Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). Failure to meet AYP has massive financial implications for schools. Title I federal funds that support schools with high percentages of low-income students are contingent upon AYP; failing schools are required to offer their students the opportunity to transfer to a non-failing school upon the second year of failing to meet AYP (potentially resulting in a reduction of state per-pupil enrollment support); and in the case of a third failing year, a school must pay for supplemental academic services for their students. Looking at 2006–2007 data, for example, out of 50 states plus the District of Columbia, on two measures of math and reading, and therefore 102 comparison points, the proficiency rate on only one NAEP score—math in Massachusetts —was found to be higher than its state-reported proficiency rate.32 Nationally, in math, 34.8 percent students were determined to be proficient by NAEP standards that year as opposed to 67.4 percent students by the states. In reading, the difference was 30.4 percent proficient (NAEP) compared with 70.5 percent (states). Some of the larger proficiency swings observed between the two math tests illustrate the implausibility of reason- ably equal rigor: Nebraska (36.3% NAEP versus 89.7% on the state assess- ment), Tennessee (25.9 percent NAEP versus 88.3% on the state assessment), and Georgia (28.2% NAEP versus 80.3% on the state assessment). Equally vast differences exist between the state-determined reading proficiency rates versus reported by the NAEP. According to Monty Neill, executive director for Fair and Open Testing (FairTest), “A review of results on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) . . . leads to the unequivocal conclusion that the rate of improvement for almost all demographic groups, in reading and math, and all grade-level or age groups, has declined compared with the pre-No Child Left Behind period or has been completely stagnant.”33 Lessons from NCLB strongly suggest that high-stakes performance funding aimed at financially and politically vulnerable community colleges will cause a reduction in stan- dards at the exact time in history American students need to be challenged and held to high standards. Similarly misguided punishment and reward “accountability systems” erroneously aimed at professional educators in K-12 triggered widespread graft and corruption as some parties responsible for annual improvements at many schools, large districts and even entire states worked to game the standardized testing system to produce the necessary outcomes, even when federal NAEP audits were known about in advance. President Obama’s Race to the Top initiative has been rebranded Erase to the Top, an allusion to mas- sive cheating scandals in the perform-or-be-punished K-12 environment that involved Atlanta, Georgia, El Paso, Texas, and Columbus, Ohio, for example. THE PERILS OF PAYING FOR PERFORMANCE 51

Under Michelle Rhee’s tenure as chancellor, Washington, DC public schools became embroiled in a widespread wrong-to-right erasure scandal.34 Rhee, now the CEO and founder of education reform group Students First, still advertises the miraculous double-digit DC achievement gains posted during her three-year tenure,35 despite ongoing investigations and mounting evi- dence of a major cover-up.36 Though some attempts are being made to create standardized exit assessments, their legitimacy and acceptance remains to be established; in the meantime, no such trusted audits systematically and objectively measure student learning outcomes in higher education. As one university professor wrote on his blog, “Outcome-driven education policies are fundamentally broken because they lack any meaningful sense of qualia. If we simply dictate that universities must deliver more graduates or face sanctions, then the universities will comply.”37 A well-established history of performance funding in two areas of commu- nity college education—grant-funded workforce development and training programs and AEL—provide more evidence that PF 2.0 will cause standards to drop, particularly in open access institutions. Interestingly, but not sur- prisingly, one of the first things workforce training leaders do in writing grant proposals or upon receipt of grants with stringent performance mea- sures built in (which is virtually all of them) is determine what ability to benefit lines will be drawn for program eligibility. One would be hard-pressed to find a grant-funded workforce training program with performance standards written in that neglects to evaluate the academic skills and intellectual abili- ties of participants prior to enrolling them in the program for the purpose of screening out those unlikely to succeed. The reputation of the institu- tions managing the grants—and, therefore, their ability to qualify for more grants in the future—is determined by the success of the grant participants, so success rates, often measured by measures difficult to manipulate, like job placement rates, employer satisfaction, and employment retention, must remain high. Federal funds established by the 1998 Adult Education and Family Literacy Act in Title II of the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) are provided to states for AEL through the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Vocational and Adult Education. With that federal funding comes the requirement that participating states “establish a comprehensive performance accountability system to assess the effectiveness of eligible agencies in making continuous improvement in their adult education and literacy activities.”38 The National Reporting System (NRS) for Adult Education is administered by the AEL arm of the Department of Education, and it sets the accountability standards states and their providers must meet to receive funding for their activities. The #1 funding determinant is educational gain, which is measured by the pre-/post-differences in educational functioning levels (EFLs) of all students who have received more than 12 hours of service in a program year. EFLs are measured through standardized tests, like the TABE (Test for Adult Basic Education) or the CASAS (Comprehensive Adult Student Assessment Systems) for ESL students. According to the NRS, “Educational 52 COMMUNITY COLLEGES AND THE ACCESS EFFECT gain measures the primary purpose of the adult basic education program: to improve the basic literacy skills of participants. This goal is the reason that all students are counted in the educational gain measure”39 [emphasis added]. And EFL improvement is the primary measure by which the fed- eral government and states judge program effectiveness and ultimately fund providers . . . except all participating students are not always counted. At least one known provider serves students with ID through a different funding stream so that even though those students are served in the same setting with the same AEL materials as every other participant, their performance is not reported in the AEL data, since including their pre-/post-growth on EFL’s would drastically reduce the overall appearance of the success of the program and put program funding at risk.40 If this is happening in even one program, data are likely being suppressed or scrubbed in some form or fashion in oth- ers, since program funding is tied directly to student performance. Many workforce training programs and at least one known AEL program reject or exclude from the data for the principal purpose of protecting funding students who do not demonstrate a reasonable ability to benefit. Community colleges, on the other hand, are expected to continue enrolling all interested students, even as the institutions are subjected to accountability increases and performance-based funding. Community colleges regularly enroll in their FSA-eligible coursework the students who were (or would be) rejected by workforce training programs and those who might benefit from an AEL set- ting. If community colleges are increasingly subjected to PF 2.0 with escalat- ing performance standards over time, and fail to require some indication of ability to benefit of enrolling students, performance standards will erode at every course level because lowering standards is the easiest (and least detect- able) way to increase student success data in an open access environment.

The Impact of Engineering False Gains The test for principled policymakers to apply when struggling to deter- mine on which levers to pull to engineer greater completion is whether the achievement increases that result are true and not of artifice. To counter the effects of the 2010 Deepwater Horizon or BP oil spill, which released nearly five million barrels of crude oil in the Gulf of Mexico, nearly two million gallons of chemical dispersants were dumped in the ocean to break up the visible petroleum and abate public outcry. While that strategy solved the surface problem, the long-term negative effects of the chemical dispersants on the ocean’s ecosystem remain unknown, leading a writer covering the environmental concern to wisely counsel that “What helps on the surface may cause deeper problems.”41 Even if in performance funding environments completion data begin to show “improvement,” like the caustic chemicals used to “fix” the BP oil spill, superficial solutions in higher education can in fact cause serious, long-term, undetectable harm at deeper levels, no matter how much it cannot measure or how much policymakers choose to ignore the full reality. THE PERILS OF PAYING FOR PERFORMANCE 53

For at least two reasons, America can now least afford their political lead- ers legislating a self-deluding topical be poured over their higher education experiences. First, the American higher education system is, still for the moment, the envy of the world and attracts much foreign talent and money. It could be argued, in fact, that higher education is America’s most valuable export and that foreign talent acquired through America’s attractive higher education system is literally one of America’s wisest imports. America is both home to the most immigrants in the world (42 million), and the strongest magnet for international students (723,000, or 3.5% of US higher educa- tion enrollment).42 Secondly, many more Americans need to prepare for the advanced employment markets our country is positioned to dominate. In The World Is Flat, Friedman argued against the “lump of labor theory,”43 which proffers that a finite mass of work in the world simply migrates around the globe to the most capable population commanding the lowest wage. Instead, Friedman and Mandelbaum in That Used to Be Us, the follow-up to The World Is Flat, make the case that the work is out there, but that America must take advantage of the available markets full of the creative, innova- tive, and financially rewarding work that is the historically the hallmark of American labor. But, they warn that to rule those markets, America must both drastically increase its educated populace (in sheer numbers and valued skills), in addition to retaining the world’s brightest foreign talent. Clearly, the absolute last thing America can afford to do is suffer a loss to the quality of its higher education system. Lowering performance standards by any measure is the surest way to disable one of our greatest social, eco- nomic, and political assets; without exaggeration, maintaining—and actu- ally increasing—US higher education productivity and quality qualifies as nothing short of a national security concern. The higher-paying jobs avail- able in America tomorrow will require more highly educated and inventive workers; educational standards can and should be raised, but certainly can- not be lowered. Yet, it is against this achievement imperative that 75 percent of incoming students at prestigious Rice University—the “Ivy League of the South”—either fail the writing placement test or are issued a “low pass.”44 The Rice numbers, by the way, precisely mirror on a much smaller scale the 25 percent of American high school seniors who in 2007 scored at or above proficiency in writing on the NAEP,45 a number that by 2011 had already dipped to 24 percent.46 If less than one in four American high school seniors possess proficient writing skills, does it seem possible that inadequate post- secondary student success is only or best addressed by applying a system of financial penalties and/rewards to postsecondary institutions? The growing obsession with institutional performance funding as a solu- tion begs the question: Do those promoting it as a solution really believe the party in the educational process most ideally incentivized and held accountable for increasing student achievement are professional educators, those who already elected to dedicate their lives to community development? CCA thinks so: “Performance funding sends a strong market signal, alert- ing higher education leaders and faculty that state taxpayers expect a greater 54 COMMUNITY COLLEGES AND THE ACCESS EFFECT return on their investment: higher student success and more graduates”47 [emphasis added]. So, in the PF 2.0 model, student success is heavily judged to be the responsibility of institution, the very entity charged with appro- priately challenging students and certifying whether or not they have met or exceeded the challenge. Any well-intentioned policy to improve postsecondary completion rates that has the net effect of reducing academic rigor will only serve in the long run to exacerbate inequity, impoverish citizens further, and make America even more vulnerable to foreign economic, political, and ideological imposition. If post- secondary credentials awarded in the future fail to certify the skills they claim to, Americans will be no better off in 2025 with credentials than they were without them a decade earlier because domestic and international employers will refuse to recognize college degrees and certificates in the face of quality dilution. Evidence that employers are eager for alternative ways to certify their current and potential employees’ skills and abilities besides through college degrees and certificates can already be seen in the growth of ACT’s WorkKeys curriculum and assessments that can result in the award of a National Career Readiness Certificate (NCRC). WorkKeys has grown exponentially since its 2006 inception. It now has a presence in all 50 states in some capacity, operates as an integral piece of statewide and regional certificate programs in 40 states, and is gaining an international foothold, as well. The NCRC ensures employers that career readiness has been assessed in a standard and interpretable way for employers across the nation and even has greater global portability in some ways than do traditional college degrees. The NCRC has in large part blossomed as a way to certify in a standard- ized way the basic skills (as well as advanced skills and soft skills, depending upon how many assessment are added to the base certificate that revolves around reading for information, locating information, and applied math) of current and future employees because, according to at least one ACT WorkKeys Associate Consultant, employers have found it increasingly dif- ficult to count on high school and college transcripts conveying meaningful information about student achievement.48 WorkKeys was inspired, in part, by the readiness-signaling void created when high school diplomas became less reliable over time as a means to certify the minimal academic abilities of diploma holders. While it is true that WorkKeys can communicate more granular information about workers’ applied skills and abilities than can high school and college transcripts, much domestic growth has been attributed to employers also using the NCRC as an exam to certify college graduates’ basic skills and abilities independent of the higher education institutions that supposedly already certified them with degrees and certificates. Certifying potential workers’ skills with portfolio badges is an alternative credential- ing system that currently complements but threatens to one day supplant traditional college degrees and has grown for much the same reasons. Duke University and MIT, to name ‘just two, are engaged in developing badge pro- grams, as Dave Maney explains in an article entitled ‘Badges’ Fill Credential Gaps where Higher Education Fails.49 THE PERILS OF PAYING FOR PERFORMANCE 55

Value Learning First and Completion Will Happen In Missouri, the development and adoption of a Performance Funding 1.0 formula was requested by higher education by Governor Jeremiah “Jay” Nixon in 2011. The end result was that only future budgetary surpluses up to 2–3 percent of an institution’s base funding would be in play—base fund- ing would remain intact. Despite Missouri being one of more than 30 CCA “alliance states,” state politicians had to that point wisely avoided deigning to CCA’s PF 2.0 recommendation. However, by 2013, a bill was making its way through the Senate that put an institution’s earlier funding level at risk if measures like retention and graduation did not improve.50 CCA warns state officials that “guaranteeing a floor of funding guts a performance fund- ing approach. Failure without consequences is not performance funding.”51 True, it does take the wind out of the performance funding sails, but it also protects against the tinny gains P.F. 2.0 models unquestionably buy. As Keeling and Hersh observed, “Learning is what matters in higher education; questions of cost, efficiency, completion and access, important as they are, are relevant only if students learn”52 [emphasis added]. Keeling and Hersh also pointed out that, “The question is not whether students graduate from college with degrees . . . the question is whether they graduate having learned what matters in a new world that has come rush- ing toward them.”53 Maintaining quality in American higher education is monumentally more important for those with the least money and power, whose lives typically depend more on their legitimate ability to compete for scarce resources in an increasingly competitive world by using their market- able skills and abilities. Completion becomes a false measurement of success if credential quality is sacrificed; it is a fudgeable metric that can and will be artificially raised by tying vitally important operational institutional fund- ing to student performance. Completion data can and will change quickly, but such Potemkinesque gains will do nothing to improve the ability of the citizens with the least financial and political power to participate in a know- ledge economy.

Encourage Continuous Improvement and Professionalism Instead If community colleges are truly about the business of improving student success, and there is no more important agenda, then every employee needs only to understand the most fundamental fiscal lesson: that it costs more to recruit a new student than to retain an existing one.54 This understand- ing, coupled with the reality that the population of traditional college stu- dents has already peaked55 (meaning no increases for the foreseeable future will come from this sector), state funding has leveled off or diminished for most community colleges, and the responsibility of community colleges for educating each community is enough to focus institutional attention and will on increasing retention and completion. Attempting to trade money for credentials, on the other hand, reveals a debased premise that commitment 56 COMMUNITY COLLEGES AND THE ACCESS EFFECT to student success from community colleges can only (or most easily) be purchased, when research-based best practices are available to every educa- tional leader with a library card, an Internet connection, and membership in professional education organizations. Professional development, organi- zational evolution, and continuous quality improvement are commonplace at community colleges in an era of remarkably heightened assessment and accountability. Higher education professionals are by nature lifelong learn- ers, terminally willing to investigate promising strategies, and implement proven approaches for the sake of improving their students’ experience and outcomes. At best, institutional performance funding could be legitimately tied to following collaboratively agreed-upon best practices and observing sound policy; tying funding to credential award, on the other hand, is the beginning of the end of quality in American higher education. While PF 1.0 versions of performance funding might usefully play a small part in future state funding formulas to institutions, community college boards, administrators and faculty are already responsible for investigating and instituting best practices that lead to student success. Observing a practice of continuous quality improvement, regularly engaging community college employees, students, and community members in institutional data reviews and discussions around student success can lead to the kinds of meaningful, invested, grassroots change we are after in this country. Financially threat- ening institutions to produce more credential-holders not only threatens to erode the quality of those credentials by predictably depressing standards, but also sorely misses the opportunity to motivate those most responsible for increasing postsecondary student success: students. In other words, while institutions and initiatives research and lob strategies at and around students P-16 in an attempt to manufacture postsecondary completion increases, not enough meaningful conversation is occurring around the individual’s responsibility to value their education to position themselves to become a contributing member of society.

Performance Incentives for Students In his blog, writer and education activist Sam Chaltain called out an impor- tant missing ingredient in completion-focused reform efforts, such as President Obama’s Race to the Top (RTTT) grant competition for K-12 schools: emotional commitment. In part, Chaltain writes, the lack of neces- sary emotional commitment programs like RTTT elicit from the most prin- cipal players in education—educators and students—comes from the way success is measured (like measuring the value teachers add to their students by standardized test scores while ignoring the incoming skill and ability levels of students). Chaltain summarized that, “Whereas attaching a dollar sign to the ‘recommended’ reforms of RTTT was an effective strategy . . . it’s equally true that there are short games and there are long games” and that “to win the long game of the current century, compulsion (is) fool’s gold; commitment (is) the gold standard.”56 To meet completion goals, we might THE PERILS OF PAYING FOR PERFORMANCE 57 settle for yanking on the state appropriations lever that critically funds our public higher education institutions responsible for educating our citizens, just to see what happens. Or, we might instead consider that the performance- f unding strategy proving increasingly popular with politicians is not best directed at higher education institutions, but rather at those most respon- sible for increasing completion rates: students. When one of the authors earned her undergraduate degree, she was only the fourth person in her immediate and extended family ever to do so. The other three included her older brother, her father, and one uncle on her mother’s side. Her great grandmother Augusta was born in 1903 and got married at age 17; her formal schooling is believed to have ended with the eighth grade. However, as the twenty-first century approached and nearing the end of her 93 years, she wisely foresaw the benefits of higher educa- tion for her family and chose to help the youngest members of the family make the connection between education and compensation. She promised $1000 to any great grandchild who completed college, payable by the child’s parents from her estate even if a degree was earned after her death. The financial incentive was great enough to catch the attention of some chil- dren in the family and communicated a fundamental law of the universe often too obtuse for students in their formative educational years without practical work experience to intuit before it is too late to make up for years of academic sloth: rewards—especially financial rewards—flow to the edu- cated and skilled individual. More explicit and immediate financial rewards for students who meet momentum points and/or upon certificate or degree completion would elicit the desired completion results while allowing insti- tutes of higher education to maintain critically important standards. The author and her three brothers now possess seven postsecondary degrees at the bachelor level or higher between them. Instead of funding institutions for student performance—if improved learning is desired along with increased degree and certificate completion rates, then students should be targeted with performance incentives. Students, with undeniably more power than institutions to legitimately increase creden- tial completion rates, often experience no tangible payoff until they graduate and secure gainful employment, benchmarks too distant and faint to success- fully motivate many students to persist and increase studious commitment when things get tough. Fortunately, some colleges and states have gotten cre- ative upon the realization that a wealth of completion improvement could be reaped by directly incentivizing students with various rewards along the way. Faced with shrinking higher education appropriations and flat financial aid dollars in a completion agenda environment, the Colorado Commission on Higher Education wisely decided to adopt a new financial aid policy that will leverage completion increases by using a momentum points model to increase and decrease financial aid in response to student performance.57 Ultimately, Colorado officials determined that student financial aid—which in that state is meted out directly to institutions instead of students, as is not typically the case elsewhere—could successfully incent desired student 58 COMMUNITY COLLEGES AND THE ACCESS EFFECT behavior by rewarding performance, leading to completion increases. In par- ticular, low-income students in Colorado will see their aid increase each time they reach a predetermined momentum point in their program of study. Others in higher education are investigating student incentives like tuition and loan balance reductions for meeting certain program thresholds,58 a strat- egy that might be compared to Nationwide Insurance’s popular Vanishing Deductible program that rewards safe drivers by reducing their deductible for each safe year of driving.59 The company benefits through limiting losses by incentivizing the party most in charge of avoiding costly accidents by attun- ing them with rewards to be particularly cautious. As McClellan suggested, in PF 2.0 environment, students learn just the opposite lesson—that instruc- tors are at the students’ mercy and that student rewards are dissociated from performance quality. More frequent rewards might also assist college stu- dents in focusing on completion and persisting in the face of distraction and difficulty to completion, whereas currently they are typically only motivated by their own internal code of commitment and the hope that one day their diploma in the distance will provide a financial return on investment. Strategic business partnerships and federal postsecondary education fund- ing tied to high-demand fields, to incentivize students to pursue certifica- tions and degrees in areas linked to local and national employment needs, are being revived. El Paso, Texas, suffering from a particularly low rate of adult citizens with postsecondary education credentials (28% compared with the state average of 34%), has taken an active approach in partnering with local big businesses to incentivize their employees with partial scholarships and more flexible schedules in exchange for work commitment to the companies as a creative way to increase that community’s ability attract and retain jobs with higher pay, thus growing their local economy.60 States that resist the cheap data bumps PF 2.0 delivers will, in the long term, reap the economic benefits of a comparatively more educated citizenry by turning their states into employment magnets. Ultimately, there are strategies and approaches we can adopt to improve postsecondary completion rates in America; paying off institutions to award more credentials, however, is clearly not the answer. The crush of grossly unprepared students currently enrolling not only in community colleges, but also in four-year institutions, is well-documented. Any solution that involves lowering higher education standards to create the illusion of greater achievement must be resisted. That much was established 30 years ago when the National Commission on Excellence in Education impressed upon the American people in A Nation at Risk the dire need to raise educational stan- dards; lowering educational standards has not become more appropriate as global competition has increased over time. If America buys into higher edu- cation performance funding as an effective and honorable way to improve completion, we may as well start assembling the commission charged with writing the 2025 report, An Embattled Nation Remains in Total Denial. Chapter 5

The Revenue Reality

As state legislators met during the opening months of 2011 to work on budgets that would be the first in three years without sizable support from federal stimulus money, higher education emerged as one of the immediate targets for state funding reductions. Though legislators publicly tout the importance of higher education, when push comes to shove in the budgeting process, most states have such a list of mandated expenses that postsecond- ary education is one of the few flexible items for appropriations adjustments. State requirements to meet federal funding for Medicaid, constitutionally- mandated expenditures for K-12 education, and relatively inflexible commit- ments to the corrections system consume such a large proportion of available revenue that when hundreds of millions of dollars must be eliminated and colleges are seen as having other potential sources of income, higher educa- tion becomes especially vulnerable. While most states significantly cut public higher education funding at the height of the 2008 recession, funds have yet to be restored to prerecession levels. The majority of community colleges with funding formulas representing 48 states that responded to a survey reported that they did not receive full funding during fiscal year 2007–2008, for example.1 By the 2010 fiscal year, revenue shortfalls had already resulted in a decline of state support for colleges of just over 1 percent nationally, despite a stim- ulus infusion of nearly $40 billion. Without this support, policy analysts estimated that education support would have declined by 3.5 percent and 6.8 percent over the previous two years. Even with the stimulus money, states such as Alabama and Massachusetts had reduced spending for col- leges and universities by 20 percent since 2008, and appropriations to higher education had declined in 28 states compared to the 2008 figures.2 Without the stimulus, 2011 reductions would be even more draconian. California was proposing $1.4 billion in funding cuts to the state university and community college systems, and Arizona was considering a 20 percent reduction in uni- versity funding, while cutting appropriations to community colleges in half. Georgia educators reported that it would take a 30 percent tuition increase to offset anticipated cuts to higher education budgets, and the Dallas Morning 60 COMMUNITY COLLEGES AND THE ACCESS EFFECT

News in Texas reported that the proposed budget would eliminate financial aid for at least 60,000 students.3 Looking back on the 2012 fiscal year budgeting cycle and the decisions that were eventually made, Eric Kelderman, writing in the Chronicle of Higher Education, observed that the “cliff” created for state higher educa- tion budgets by the infusion of millions of dollars of federal stimulus money may have turned out to be even higher than prognosticators had imagined. Between the 2011 and 2012 budgets, higher education support across the country declined by 7.6 percent, a decline of more than 4 percent from the previous year even after stimulus money was factored out of the equation. New Hampshire’s higher education budget was reduced by 41 percent in just one year, and California was greater than 13 percent lower than 2011, even had there been no stimulus support.4 Due to recessionary effects, community college budgets were forced to withstand a triple hit of sorts as funding is typically a mix of state revenue, local property tax support, and tuition. Property values were in decline, stu- dents were less able to afford tuition increases, and both federal and state government officials were pressuring colleges to hold the line on college fees. In Missouri, for example, Governor Nixon brokered a deal with college lead- ers for the 2010 fiscal year that he would not cut funding for higher educa- tion if they refrained from raising tuition for the second straight year.5 The following year, he asked community college leaders to keep tuition increases to $5 per credit hour or less, while reducing state support for higher educa- tion by $16.8 million dollars,6 and for the 2012 fiscal year, again asked for minimal tuition increases while recommending a reduction in state higher education support of 12.5 percent.7 At the federal level, President Obama exerted similar pressure during his 2012 State of the Union Address when he directly addressed higher educa- tion leaders and policymakers:

Of course, it’s not enough for us to increase student aid. We can’t just keep subsidizing skyrocketing tuition; we’ll run out of money. States also need to do their part, by making higher education a higher priority in their budgets. And colleges and universities have to do their part by working to keep costs down. . . . Some schools redesign courses to help students finish more quickly. Some use better technology. The point is, it’s possible. So let me put colleges and university on notice: If you can’t stop tuition from going up, the funding you get from taxpayers will go down. Higher education can’t be a luxury— it’s an economic imperative that every family in America should be able to afford.8

The president’s message suggests that national higher education concerns involve more than just funding and financial aid. Writing several years before this address in Change Magazine, Jane Wellman of the Delta Project on Postsecondary Costs, Productivity and Accountability noted that, “(T)he funding problem in American higher education is as much about focus and THE REVENUE REALITY 61 priority as it is about revenue,”9 intimating that any successful resolution will require employing a different set of values in our nation than have been for some time.

Pell Problems While the amount of the maximum Pell award has increased over time, it has failed to keep pace with rising college costs, greatly restricting the choice of postsecondary settings for low-income students as evidenced by their dispro- portionate representation in America’s community colleges. The 50-year-old federal Pell program, which provides higher education grants for low-income students, covered 99 percent of community college costs around 1980 and 77 percent of public four-year costs, percentages that by 2011 had dropped to 62 percent and 36 percent, respectively.10 Adding to the pain, both public and private colleges “have shifted their own spending priorities, modestly increasing investments in students from families in the lowest income quin- tile, while sharply boosting their investment in education of students from the top income quintile.”11 Financial support for extremely low-income stu- dents, who commonly bring considerable debt with them to college, is fre- quently inadequate to sustain them through to degree completion, making higher education affordability and increased public support of promising, impoverished Americans a major priority of reform. After surviving federal budget cuts in 2011 and actually being increased in 2012 (and again in 2013), the Pell Grant program came under its annual scrutiny, since Pell Grants fall under discretionary spending and must be approved each year by Congress.12 As America approached its authorized debt ceiling for the second year in a row, Congress voted in 2012 to maintain the $5,500 maximum Pell award to qualified students, but also instituted a host of changes to restrict outlays, including a reduction in Pell from a maximum 18 semesters to 12, suspension of a six-month grace period on interest after graduation, and the elimination of the Ability to Benefit (ATB) provision.13 The removal of ATB provides insight into the severity of America’s finan- cial condition as the move was made in desperation to limit the hemorrhag- ing of FSA funds by “plug(ing) a $1.3 billion gap in the Pell program,”14 which had more than tripled from a $10 billion program in 2001 to one in excess of $34 billion in 2012. The end of ATB has meant that since July 1, 2012, academically prepared students lacking a high school diploma or General Education Development (GED) are left without a way to efficiently establish FSA eligibility, which the provision previously secured by offering such students the opportunity to prove their merit on several nationally- approved tests. America’s revenue reality is now responsible for two higher education tragedies: pressuring community colleges in particular to chase some of the cheapest—and least educationally respectable—ways to improve completion metrics and reducing legitimate enrollment by denying capable students FSA access. 62 COMMUNITY COLLEGES AND THE ACCESS EFFECT

The recent explosion in Pell distribution confirms two realities: more low- income students are attending college, and income inequality in America is expanding. In fact, Sean F. Reardon’s work identifies the income achievement gap in America as “now nearly twice as large as the black-white achievement gap,”15 which 50 years ago was actually about twice the size of the income achievement gap. Exacerbating the income achievement gap is the indis- putable expansion of income inequality in America, a disturbing problem increasingly identified by economists as in most need of national address.16 In part, Reardon argued that difference in school preparedness between the wealthiest students and their middle- and lower-class counterparts accounts for the persistent and widening achievement gap that continues all the way through college. Reardon alluded to The Matthew Effect, which sociologists and educators use to describe the cycle of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer, a nod to the Bible verse Matthew 13:12. While income inequality is growing in most developed countries in the world, staggering income inequality recently earned the United States the dubious honor of fourth-worst in the world among the 34 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries, to be outdone only by Chile, Mexico, and Turkey.17 Nearly three-quarters of the record 6 percent Fall 2007 to Fall 2008 enrollment growth of freshman stu- dents in American colleges—the largest increase in 40 years—was attributed to minority enrollment,18 students who are disproportionately low-income, as well. If America is to make progress on projected educational attainment needs communicated by the completion agenda, greater completion must be realized by low-income students.

Ability to Benefit Removal Because the removal of ATB eliminates a critically important avenue for capable students without high school diplomas to efficiently establish FSA eligibility, it must be immediately reinstated. Removal of ATB dispropor- tionately injures the capable, low-income student who is much more likely to have prematurely left high school to work or care for family, for example, and the capable immigrant who often faces difficulty securing secondary tran- scripts to verify high school graduation from a distant and not infrequently war-torn motherland. Intellectually capable, financially needy students fail to earn high school diplomas for all kinds of reasons entirely unrelated to academic ability and/or motivation. These are exactly the college-ready stu- dents Pell Grants and other FSA funds are meant to support. Unfortunately, in an environment of dwindling resources, supporters of the Consolidated Appropriations Act took the short-term view and removed the ATB provi- sion. Attempting to save public funds at the expense of investing in promis- ing, motivated, low-income college students is neither wise fiscal nor social policy. Senator Patty Murray from the state of Washington, who co-sponsored an amendment with Senator Al Franken to the Education Appropriations THE REVENUE REALITY 63

Bill in 2012 to reinstate the ATB provision, got it right, saying, “It doesn’t make sense to punish students we know would benefit from postsecondary education and training.”19 Sadly, the Murray–Franken amendment, which would have also redirected nearly three-quarters of a billion dollars of gov- ernment profit into the lagging Pell program and provided for increased maximum award,20 was not approved for vote and it died in the Senate in July, 2013. Long the world leader in high school graduation percentage, by 2009 the United States had slipped to 21st out of 26 OECD countries, a gap that has continued to widen as achieving countries continue bypassing America’s relatively steady rate of 76 percent.21 That means that almost one- fourth of traditional-age college students no longer have the opportunity to expeditiously qualify for the most completion-friendly forms of FSA by proving they merit public investment, which unnecessarily increases financial hardship for the nation’s most vulnerable and capable low-income citizens. The restoration of the ATB provision to FSA regulations would do much to meaningfully improve postsecondary completion by financially support- ing meritorious low-income students who technically do not possess a high school diploma or the equivalent.

National Debt and Student Debt America’s fiscal health could hardly be more imperiled. Look no further than 2011 when the United States lost its AAA credit rating for the first time since 1941 after yet another debt ceiling increase.22 Financial experts are predicting additional US credit downgrades because of doubt that long- term spending decreases and revenue increases will be successfully negoti- ated in Congress, a conservative approach to spending clearly not employed for years.23 Many comparisons have been made between the ticking student loan debt bomb and the 2007/2008 subprime housing loan crisis and for reasons that go beyond the obvious similarities of the massive debt attached to both markets. Like borrowers who signed onto home mortgages they could not afford, many college students find themselves financially trapped, faced with a perfect storm of public divestment in higher education, escalat- ing tuition, financial aid packages that have ineffectually shifted away from grants and toward loans, which has caused many parents to reluctantly take out supplemental loans to fund college for their children, and flat income once they do graduate. After adjusting for inflation, federal lending for college increased 56 per- cent per student over the past decade; the government now lends over $100 billion per year,24 while college seniors graduating with student loans borrow on average more than $25,000.25 Parents, on average, are taking out $34,000 to help pay for their children’s education, a figure that balloons to $50,000 when the standard 10-year interest rate is taken into account.26 For the first time in history, American credit card debt was overtaken by student loan debt in June 2010.27 President Obama paid an April 2012 visit to Late Night with Jimmy Fallon on the campus of University of North Carolina, 64 COMMUNITY COLLEGES AND THE ACCESS EFFECT where he slow-jammed news about an impending interest rate hike on stu- dent loans to an audience of UNC students (complete with end-of-song hot mic drop). The president’s performance prompted a student-fueled social media campaign aimed at federal lawmakers who held the power to float the reduced rate for another year.28 In the end, Congress came together and passed a bill to keep the interest rate on subsidized Stafford loan rates from doubling in July, 2012, to 6.8 percent. But when the issue arose again in 2013, Congress allowed the rate to double before issuing a woefully inad- equate patch for loans taken out after July 1, the ultimate effect of which is expected to raise future borrower rates on student loans.29 Far from impacting just the individual debtor, heavy student debt loads extend the entire country’s economic troubles by keeping money out of the consumer market as a large percentage of debtor income is tied up just try- ing to cover the interest and penalties attached the college loan principles they struggle to impact with insufficient salaries. Crushing student debt has created a weighty drag on the American economy for a generation of for- mer college students—graduates and dropouts—struggling just to survive, unable to purchase cars and homes and start families.30 As one writer color- fully described the debt many graduates struggle with, “Entering the lucra- tive college-educated realms of the economy is like being smuggled across the border—you can get to the promised land if you try hard enough, but you arrive in a state of indentured servitude to the shady operators who over- charged you for the trip.”31 In 2013, the average share of the US national debt per citizen was over $50,000; the average share of the national debt for each American taxpayer was almost $150,000.32 Unfortunately, at a time in history when postsecondary credentials are needed more than ever to pre- pare citizens to compete in an increasingly competitive global economy, the United States is in poor economic health, and the certainty of critical higher education federal funding is constantly in question. To borrow a phrase used with increasing frequency lately in news reports of America’s economic state: Something’s gotta give.

The Dire Need for Increased Academic Productivity Every prediction since at least the early 1980s has identified the need to increase the proportion of American citizens in possession of postsecond- ary credentials with labor market value, a crisis unsuccessfully addressed in the past 30 years, which has finally resulted in panic-tinged activity in the political and policy circles that intersect with education. In 2011, the OECD concluded that in order to make meaningful gains on the completion agenda, the United States would either have to spend much more money or get much greater productivity out of funds spent. None of the thirty-three other OECD countries that participated in the 2009 PISA, with the excep- tion of Luxembourg (with a population just over 500,000), spent more per pupil in elementary and secondary schools than the United States.33 Many of the highest-performing countries spend considerably less per student than THE REVENUE REALITY 65 the United States, yet much more effectively credential their postsecondary citizens. Funding increases for American public education are not expected; in fact, in 2011, per-pupil expenditure for K-12 students in public schools fell for the first time since 1977, the year the U.S. Census Bureau started keeping track. The fact is undeniable: academic achievement must improve in the secondary sector for postsecondary completion rates to rise without lowering standards. Prince and Choitz’s 2012 report cited a 13 percent decline in state sup- port for postsecondary education since 1990, and sounded the alarm that massive underinvestment in higher education was directly linked to lower postsecondary credential attainment, low productivity that costs the nations billions in unemployment benefits, unrealized income taxes, and a host of additional socioeconomic benefits returned to society by well-educated citi- zens. Since no infusion of new funds is expected into public education, any redeeming higher education solution must logically include maximizing the efficiency of every federal dollar through smarter investments that in the future will return more to the economy than our current investments do. The study authors concluded this exactly: “With severely limited state funding and mounting pressure to cut federal spending, policymakers need to make informed decisions about what investments in education yield the greatest benefits.”34

A Long History of Consumer Protection in FSA Chronic misapplication and improper FSA award present an obvious place where waste can be cut and savings redirected to increase the aid packages of low-income students, while also supporting the development of postsecond- ary alternatives to better serve students who are ineligible for FSA by federal regulation. The details of the improper award and application of FSA will be covered in chapters 6 and 7, but it is first important to establish that over its entire history of existence, FSA has been governed by fiscally conservative regulations with the explicit aim to reserve taxpayer dollars for students likely to produce a return on the public investment. In short, the intent behind the FSA program has never been to subsidize unfocused, unproductive higher education enrollment, which is why all eligible recipients are required to be enrolled in an approved program of study. Other performance-based regula- tions must also be met before a student is deemed eligible for FSA. Even the recent 2008 Reauthorization of the HEOA, which made FSA available for the first time to students with intellectual disabilities to specifically support their enrollment in Certified Postsecondary Transition Programs (CPTPs), requires that those students be enrolled in an authorized CPTP program to be eligible for FSA. To illustrate how historically conservative the federal view of FSA distri- bution is, college students not in possession of high school diplomas or the equivalent were only first granted the ability to access FSA by the Education Amendments of 1976 (or P. L. 94–482), more than a decade after Title IV 66 COMMUNITY COLLEGES AND THE ACCESS EFFECT of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (HEA) authorized the most compre- hensive federal financial aid program to date by providing access to grants, loans, and work study. In 1978, The Middle Income Student Assistance Act expanded FSA availability to students in “ ‘postsecondary vocational i nstitutions’ . . . and ‘proprietary schools.’ ”35 Included in the 1976 HEA amendments was the first sign of ATB, which allowed students lacking high school diplomas who met a school-determined performance standard to become eligible for FSA.36 The government let each institution set their own ATB performance thresholds, mostly because institutions’ program requirements and missions varied so much that the government did not want to assume oversight and believed better eligibility determinations would be made by local officials. At that time, though, Congress predicted what abuse could (and did) happen, and specifically warned higher education institutions “not to lower admissions standards or otherwise encourage individuals unable to ‘bene- fit’ from their educational programs to register because of the broadening of student aid eligibility.”37 By the 1980s, however, citing extraordinarily high college dropout rates and embarrassingly low ATB thresholds, some Department of Education officials argued that ATB should be rescinded and all students should just be required to complete secondary education by earning a diploma or a GED before being allowed to access FSA. Ultimately, ATB successfully parried that policy offensive to live another day. The Code of Federal Regulations, where the ATB wording originally appeared, inter- estingly puts the burden of proof of ability not on the student but on the institution. It reads: “(A)n institution must be able to demonstrate, upon request by the Secretary, that these students [without high school diplo- mas] . . . have the ability to benefit,”38 and emphasized the institution’s responsibility in verifying the federal investment was wisely extended on behalf of the American taxpayer. Wayne Riddle, an education specialist and researcher in the Library of Congress, explained in a 1986 publication on ATB that in addition to col- lege admissions officers being under constant pressure to expand enrollment “without regard to whether students are sufficiently well prepared to benefit from the educational program,”39 other officers might too freely approve FSA eligibility in the absence of an imposed objective standard by committing what Riddle labeled “honest misunderstandings.”40 Nevertheless, Riddle openly challenged the legitimacy that might lead an admissions officer to “take the position that anyone has the ability to derive some benefit from an educational program, or that a student’s willingness to enroll . . . is sufficient indication of proper motivation and willingness to benefit,”41 a line of think- ing alive and well in many financial aid offices today. Confirming even more of a federal lean toward reserving FSA award for promising students, Riddle wrote while reminding readers that the ATB provision only applied to FSA access and that higher education institutions remained still entirely free to admit and enroll any student they wanted, “(I)f States, or the firms operating proprietary schools, wish to lower their THE REVENUE REALITY 67 standards for admission, it is not automatically necessary for the Federal Government to follow them in that direction, especially when the emphasis in recent Federal policy statements has been to encourage higher educational standards.”42 Notably, Riddle’s comments were published three years after the 1983 release of the A Nation at Risk report, the most authoritative call to date upon America to significantly increase education standards.

Loss Prevention In 1989, federal student loan defaults had approached $250 million, up $14 million from just two years earlier.43 As part of the Student Loan Default Prevention Initiative Act of 1990, federally approved ATB tests and cut scores were introduced to ensure both public and proprietary institutions were dis- bursing FSA to students without high school diplomas or the equivalent in accordance with the letter and spirit of FSA regulations. In essence, it took the government less than 15 years to mistrust schools with FSA eligibility decisions regarding ATB cases. The loan default prevention act was part of a larger congressional budget reconciliation act, and the federal message was clear: The waste of public funds through improper FSA award and misap- plication must stop. Committed to eliminating the abuse of Department of Education funds, The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) fired up fraud flares in the form of investigations and reports in 1990 and again in 2010. The 1990 OIG report concluded that federal action was needed to “stop the bleeding of hundreds of millions of dollars through (FSA) abuses,”44 and cautioned that “improper screening of students’ ability to benefit can result in improper admissions, raise false hopes and lead to loan defaults.”45 The government altered performance standards again in 1996 around the ATB provision, this time requiring non–high school graduates to meet not a predetermined score on a standardized test, but to match or exceed the average score on any of the federally approved ATB tests of the high school graduates who took the tests in the previous three years. To those who argued that those requirements were too high for FSA eligibility, the Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education at the time countered that requiring the exhibition of basic skills reflective on par with the average high school graduate who took the tests was not asking too much in return for public investment, saying: “It is not as if high-school students have an outra- geously high level of success.”46 The OIG’s report to the offices of Federal Student Aid and Postsecondary Education in 2010 cited widespread, fraudulent test procedures by postsec- ondary institutions—but particularly singled out proprietary schools due to such egregious offenses as the continued use of ATB test proctors who had been previously decertified for deceitful behavior. At play in 2009 was $12.8 billion in FSA awarded to ATB students, or more than one-tenth of the $113 billion total disbursed through Title IV.47 To say the least, ample ver- dant reasons exist to motivate liberal FSA award and misapplication. Years of intense focus on proprietary schools and investigations of their illegitimate 68 COMMUNITY COLLEGES AND THE ACCESS EFFECT use of FSA, though, have effectively hidden improper FSA activity at public postsecondary institutions. Andrew Martin and Andrew W. Lehren wisely observed in a recent New York Times piece covering the student loan debt crisis in America, “The outcomes for many (college) students have been so poor—and the reported abuses and misdeeds by the colleges so abundant— that the for-profit colleges have played another role in the worsening debt problem: drawing attention away from nonprofit private and public colleges and universities, which have been slow to face public scrutiny.”48 In a 2009 statement given as testimony by the Director of Education, Workforce and Income Security, George A. Scott, before the congressional Lifelong Learning and Competitiveness of the Committee on Education and Labor subcommittee within Higher Education, cited the need to better protect both vulnerable students and taxpayers from predatory institutions inappropriately awarding FSA as the reason for recommending increased federal oversight “to help ensure only eligible students receive federal stu- dent aid.”49 Scott also shined a light on the practice of proprietary school recruiters directing non–high school graduates to online diploma mills to enable them to technically qualify them for FSA without having to pass a federally-approved ATB test, a provision that at the time was still in place. Scott explained that, “Problems with the use of invalid high school diplomas to gain access to federal student aid are partly attributed to key weaknesses in (Department of) Education’s policies governing high school diploma requirements, and the lack of information and guidance on valid high school diplomas.”50 In other words, Scott revealed that indiscriminate award of high school diplomas allowed students unqualified by federal standards to become eligible for FSA, an abuse of the spirit of FSA regulations. Scott characterized the procurement of a duplicitous diploma as a clear violation of the ATB provision and the FSA regulation that requires students to possess a high school diploma or the equivalent to be eligible for FSA. Chapter 6

Honoring the Letter and Spirit of Federal Student Aid

Outstanding federal student loan debt topped $1 trillion in 2012,1 and rate of payment on existing federal student loans dropped 8 percent from just five years earlier,2 prompting many comparisons between the perilous balloon- ing US student debt and the devastation resulting from the subprime mort- gage crisis that rocked the country in the mid-2000s. Student debt, however, is in some ways more dangerous than housing debt, because it cannot be as easily refinanced and, as legislated by Congress in the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005, except under extremely rare circumstances cannot be discharged through bankruptcy.3 In an article covering ballooning student debt, the authors noted, “While there are stan- dardized disclosure forms for buying a car or a house or even signing up for a credit card, no such thing exists for colleges.”4 Nevertheless, demonstrating strong commitment to the national completion agenda, the federal govern- ment continues to issue record numbers of grants and loans. In 2013, the federal government collected more from federal student loan interest, principal, and penalties ($51 billion) than posted America’s most profitable company, big oil Exxon Mobile Corporation ($44.9 billion).5 Painfully coexisting realities like the growing student debt bomb and stupe- fying federal intake off FSA led Anthony Carnevale, director of the Center on Education and the Workforce at Georgetown University, to blame the government for managing the FSA program in ways that deceive and finan- cially injure unwary young students.6 Jenna Ashley Robinson, director of the John W. Pope Center for Higher Education Policy, also argued for policy changes, such as the ability to dis- charge student loans through bankruptcy, to drive ethical lending. “Current student loan policy,” according to Robinson, “has led young people down the wrong path—away from frugality and prudence to profligacy. It’s time to start sending better signals.”7 Yet, for all the calls on the federal government to make higher education more affordable and to accomplish better lending terms for college students 70 COMMUNITY COLLEGES AND THE ACCESS EFFECT and their parents, the separate practices of some entities together have the effect of assisting unqualified students in subverting the letter and spirit of existing FSA regulations meant to protect both taxpayers and students. While certainly the government must work harder to ensure that higher education is both affordable and financeable, the government has already done much to combat waste and fraud through the establishment of existing FSA regulations, even as the policies and practices of others enable—even if inadvertently—and encourage students to circumvent those regulations. Failure to observe fun- damental FSA regulations wastes precious funds, abuses public trust, clouds postsecondary student success data, and ultimately leads us further away from achieving our nation’s completion goals, which makes FSA violations one of the most glaringly unaddressed issues affecting completion. All students wishing to access FSA must fill out the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA), which includes submitting standard personal information in addition to basic financial evidence, such as income, assets, and tax information. Once a student is determined to be eligible through the federal stage of the eligibility process to draw from that annual $150 billion FSA resource, each participating institution then makes additional eligibility determinations to assist in administering the funds in accordance with fed- eral regulations. These “School-Determined Requirements” are still require- ments, but the government depends on participating institutions to carry out FSA regulations related to school curriculum and high school diploma authentication, for example, verifications performed with greater efficiency and accuracy by local higher education institutions than could be by a fed- eral agency. Simply put, the FAFSA form does not capture all the information needed to determine appropriate award and proper application of funds, so the gov- ernment relies on the integrity of participating institutions to know the FSA regulations and to apply them ethically, lest they put their accreditation and future FSA participation at risk. Intentional or not, however, the letter and the spirit of important FSA regulations and critical consumer protections wind up routinely violated. To state the obvious, it is in the financial interest of institutions to enroll as many FSA-eligible students as possible. Therefore, it is tempting to expect profiteering as the explanation behind institutional misapplication and improper award of FSA, but it is likely that many financial aid officers are unknowledgeable about the regulations and/or may be unfamiliar with the institution’s curriculum, knowledge needed about both areas to properly determine FSA eligibility. Multiple, well-placed community college adminis- trators have confirmed that, in their experience, not all financial aid officers are as knowledgeable as they ideally should be about the regulations the government and their institutions are relying on them to enforce. Faculty who have created and/or teach low-level, FSA-ineligible devel- opmental courses are likely unaware of rules that define FSA-eligible curriculum; they also are usually not involved at all in FSA eligibility deter- minations. In all likelihood, knowledge-sharing gaps exist between the HONORING THE LETTER 71 ideally regulations-savvy financial aid officers and the curriculum-savvy faculty, which accounts for honest oversight in some cases. Additionally, though, some institutions may be tempted to disregard the rules to benefit from the enrollment increase and/or so they can achieve support for post- secondary students believed not to have other viable postsecondary funding options or settings in which to continue their education.

Which FSA Regulations Are Commonly Violated? 1) Students are ineligible for FSA if enrolled in all remedial coursework Multiple FSA eligibility rules apply to students enrolled in developmental education (what the government calls remedial coursework), and this par- ticular one states that “a student enrolled solely in a remedial program is not considered to be in an eligible program.”8 With incredibly few exceptions, a person “must be enrolled as a regular student in an eligible program in order to receive FSA funds.”9 An estimated one-third of entering full-time community college students test into three areas of remediation—reading, math, and English—and are often assigned a developmental-level student success course to achieve full-time status. Not all community colleges recog- nize this regulation and improperly award FSA to students enrolled only in developmental courses. Furthermore, even if a student is allowed by an institution to take college- level courses while co-enrolled in remedial courses, FSA regulations read: “(I)f acceptance into an eligible program is contingent on completing reme- dial work, a student cannot be considered enrolled in that program until she completes the remedial work”10 [emphasis added]. In other words, develop- mental prerequisites that are required by the institution to be met before enrollment in a program of study make a student ineligible for FSA until the prerequisites are met, even if they also are allowed to enroll in some college- level courses. Only students enrolled in programs of study leading to a degree or certificate offered at the awarding institution are eligible for FSA.

2) Students May Not Apply FSA to Remedial Work that Will Keep Them from Entering a Program of Study for More than One Year A related FSA violation occurs when students are allowed to apply FSA to remedial courses at or near the bottom of a long developmental sequence that would take them longer than one year to complete before successfully enrolling in a program of study.11 The pedagogical worth of lengthy develop- mental sequences is being strongly challenged in completion conversations, and restructuring in the future may make this rule less in play. However, for many years, community colleges have observed mandatory assessment and placement policies and some have enrolled the students with the lowest test scores at the bottom of developmental reading, English, and math sequences 72 COMMUNITY COLLEGES AND THE ACCESS EFFECT lasting longer than a year while allowing them to apply FSA to those courses. Both this rule and the next one do not apply to ESL students (English as a second language) or students with ID; members of both groups are allowed to use FSA in different ways while being enrolled in programs designed to meet their unique postsecondary education needs.

3) Students May Not Apply FSA to Curriculum Below High School Another rule specifies that all “remedial courses must be at least at the high school level, as determined by the state legal authority, (or) your school’s accrediting agency”12 to be FSA-eligible. Another FSA regulation is likely not more routinely violated. The curriculum examples offered below the sec- ondary level at community colleges across the country to which students are incorrectly allowed to apply FSA are seemingly endless. Though probably not the most extreme example, one institution requires mandatory placement for students testing in to a reading course that exits at a sixth-grade-level equiva- lency and allows FSA to be applied. Some of the measured course objec- tives require students to “name the letters of the alphabet, . . . identify short vowel sounds, . . . identify which letters are vowels, (and) . . . identify instances in which y is a vowel.”13

4) Students Are Ineligible for FSA If Not in Possession of a High School Diploma While the letter of the first three regulations is routinely broken, the spirit of this regulation is more commonly violated. Far from hoping that every student interested in college takes out federal student loans or becomes eli- gible for grants, the federal government has consistently tied FSA eligibil- ity to academic preparation through various regulations. For example, FSA regulations state that, “To receive FSA funds, a student must be qualified to study at the postsecondary level,”14 which the government roughly equates to a student having earned a high school diploma or the equivalent, such as a GED, or having completed homeschooling “at the secondary level as defined by state law.”15 The government accepts the notoriously challenging GED credential as a legitimate alternative to the high school diploma, calling it “equivalent,”16 clearly demonstrating federal desire that students meet a rea- sonable standard of academic performance as a condition for FSA eligibility. Only one additional avenue exists for students who enroll in college before earning a high school diploma to establish FSA eligibility: “A transcript indi- cating the student has excelled in high school,”17 cementing federal intent to reserve FSA for students who meet or exceed reasonable minimum levels of academic achievement or skills to merit FSA investment. Further, FSA regulations instruct that if school officials “have reason to believe the high school diploma is dubious—eg., the college knows the student . . . was required to perform little or no work,”18 officials must validate HONORING THE LETTER 73 the diploma, which puts the country in a curious set of circumstances. As will be detailed in the next chapter, secondary students with disabilities enrolled in substantially modified core curriculum are regularly awarded regular high school diplomas for meeting significantly lowered IEP (Individualized Education Program) goals. The FSA Handbook, intent on deterring fraud, recommends that “Acceptable documentation for checking the validity of a student’s high school completion can include the diploma and a final transcript that shows all the courses she took.”19 However, in addition to students being awarded standard diplomas for meeting lesser IEP goals while enrolled in modified core curriculum, their academic performance is also commonly transcribed in ways that intentionally obscure true levels of academic achievement to third parties. Intentional or not, since many state departments of higher edu- cation allow or require the award of regular high school diplomas to students with disabilities who meet their IEP goals while enrolled in modified core curriculum and since transcripts are known to be scrubbed, practices and policies at the secondary level have the effect of disabling built-in FSA con- sumer protections because third parties believe all standard diplomas issued by approved high schools were awarded for meeting the state’s minimum standards applied to students on non-modified curriculum.

FSA Eligibility in Plain Language If the Department of Education were to craft for students an executive sum- mary around the intent of FSA in plain language, it would read something like this: To the Student:

M If you are an ESL student enrolled in coursework below ninth grade that is part of an eligible program, you are eligible for FSA funds.
M If you are a student with an ID who enrolls in a comprehensive transition and postsecondary education program, you are eligible to apply FSA funds to that program.
M If you are not classified in one of the two previous categories and are ineli- gible for FSA funds because you do not possess a legitimate high school diploma or the equivalent, you may either self-fund your higher education, or you may consider investigating other non–FSA-eligible postsecondary programs that you may qualify for, such as workforce training programs, AEL, or Continuing Education. If at a point in the future you earn a high school diploma or the equivalent, please apply again for FSA funds.

The Benefits of Observing Existing FSA Regulations The two groups most obviously afforded protection by FSA regulations are students and taxpayers. Low-skilled students have their long-term FSA eligibility and funds protected when not allowed to start their FSA clocks 74 COMMUNITY COLLEGES AND THE ACCESS EFFECT prematurely, a feature that recently became much more important when Congress voted in 2012 to reduce the maximum number of Pell semesters from 18 to 12.20 If a student first applies FSA to the lowest developmental courses in a long sequence, for example, there is a good chance that not enough money will remain at the end for them to complete their program of study. In the FSA Handbook, the U.S. Department of Education specifi- cally advises institutions to protect FSA for developing ESL students, yet the warning applies to seriously low-skilled students, as well: “(B)e aware that awarding FSA loans or Pell Grants over a series of semesters for (remedial coursework) can exhaust his eligibility for FSA loans before he completes his program.”21 Taxpayers obviously have their investment in America’s future better protected when the government refuses to financially underwrite the college enrollment of students whose basic skills are nowhere near those needed to succeed in college-level coursework, thus placing safeguards on taxpayer responsibility for supporting the college enrollment of the seri- ously unprepared. Recently, a study conducted by the American Institutes for Research (AIR) confirmed strategic financial aid increases to be no remedy for poor academic preparation, which provides another clue that part of the answer to America’s completion conundrum lies in enforcing existing FSA regulations that reserve funds for reasonably prepared students. In fact, AIR vice presi- dent Mark Schneider suggested the widespread community college practice of indiscriminately awarding FSA without requiring any demonstration of ability to benefit is a very poor use of increasingly scarce personal and public resources by explaining that “Admitting (students who are not college-ready) to community college may not be fair to students, many of whom have taken time out of the labor market, paid tuition and taken loans to finance their education. It may also not be fair to taxpayers, who pay for the state subsidies to community colleges and other state aid programs.”22 The AACC released a 2012 report to assist member institutions in prevent- ing two types of FSA fraud: everyday Pell grab-n-go committed by individu- als and highly organized online scam rings involving multiple participants in collusion.23 Despite being unable to estimate the fraud, report authors Baime and Mullin provided too much assurance when they pronounced that, “It is clear that (the fraud) is an extremely small percentage of all students receiving aid at community colleges.”24 The National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators reported the national percentage of Pell fraud dropped from 3.12 percent in 2010 to 2.7 percent in 2011 while the fraud losses in real dollars exploded, from $600 million in 2009 to $1 billion in 2011.25 While technically the intentional fraud committed by scammers compared with the total FSA disbursed at community colleges is admittedly small, the improper award to and misapplication of FSA by community col- lege students is inestimably much larger. Virtually every strategy that Baime and Mullin recommended to defend against intentional fraud is applicable also to massive numbers of ineligible students who are improperly granted FSA and/or allowed to misapply it HONORING THE LETTER 75 in violation of the letter and spirit of FSA regulations. Baime and Mullin encouraged institutions to ask students to notify financial aid officers “if they suspect that anyone is violating the intent of the student aid programs,”26 while many of those very officers are involved—whether or not they are aware of it—in the misapplication and improper award of FSA. Baime and Mullin asked faculty to ferret out fraud by vigilantly looking for students not actively engaged in the learning environment and to report those who are not; while financial aid officers are to feel comfortable asking “student aid applicants for detailed information about the circumstances of their pursuit of higher education.”27 Many community college students not fitting the two blatant fraud cat- egories addressed in the report nevertheless could be by these standards reported for financial aid fraud by failing to academically engage and/or failing to be legitimately in pursuit of a postsecondary credential of any kind. That serious accusations of financial aid fraud could be equally levied against students who enroll with the intent to defraud and those whose academic preparedness puts them at complete odds with the intent of FSA says a lot about the need for the spirit and letter of existing regulations to be more closely honored. Baime and Mullin could not have said it better: “Abuse of student aid negatively affects everyone.”28

The Unintentional Injury of Improper FSA Award and Misapplication What has yet to successfully take place in the context of the postsecond- ary completion agenda is a meaningful conversation about the difference between higher and postsecondary or continuing education. For their part, colleges by and large do everything they can to recruit new FSA-eligible students, in many instances virtually crossing their fingers when they enroll students in settings far more challenging than prior academic performance would suggest is remotely defensible. An example of placing emphasis on enrollment over other important considerations, like affordability, can be seen in this 2009 article aimed at enrollment managers, which advised col- leges hoping to attract new students to avoid using words like “cost” and “pay” in the marketing materials sent to prospective students and to instead more liberally use words like “now” and “save” and “free” and “easy.”29 Access to FSA—while obviously critical to postsecondary completion—can severely and negatively impact citizens’ finances and enrollment eligibility if provided prematurely; furthermore, the effect of FSA is lowered when funds are committed to ineligible students and activities with extremely low productivity. Many students currently enrolled in traditional, degree-bound develop- mental education coursework would benefit more from postsecondary expe- riences with basic skills development delivered in the context of workplace preparation or even in a workplace setting. Fortuitously, community colleges are wonderfully flexible learning spaces with unique institutional features 76 COMMUNITY COLLEGES AND THE ACCESS EFFECT that allow for the creation and delivery of these kinds of programs, and the design and delivery of these experiences is increasing. But in absence of apparent need, the full complement of these programs has yet to be designed and delivered. If seriously low-skilled students who would benefit from them are insentiently directed (and in some cases inadvertently or allowed inadvis- ably allowed) to the FSA-eligible, college-bound developmental education sequence, then there is no perceived need to advise those students elsewhere or to create postsecondary programs that would better meet their educa- tional and employment needs. Many students with ID would also benefit much more from programs tai- lored to their unique postsecondary transition needs. Their advocates would also welcome more appropriate postsecondary programs, such as those that meet the educational, social, independent living, and employment needs specific to postsecondary students with ID. Doing the best they can with limited options, many parents enroll their children who took a modified high school core curriculum in the community college and in credit-bearing courses, often not because they believe their children will succeed by tra- ditional academic standards, but because their children express the strong desire to go to college, like many Americans, and because other benefits are gained by their attendance. Absent program choices, not to mention discov- ering postsecondary environments with non-existent admissions standards and FSA availability, students with ID typically place into and enroll in the lowest levels of developmental education sequences and then fail at extraor- dinarily high rates, burning up public funds that could have been used to support the development and delivery of better postsecondary options for them and to support more prepared students in the FSA-eligible curriculum for the purpose the funds were intended. If all existing FSA regulations were observed, more seriously unprepared students would be beneficially diverted to other meaningful and often less- expensive settings, such as AEL, continuing education, workforce training, community programs, employment, etc., one of the intended natural conse- quences by FSA regulations in the first place. The government concomitantly limits FSA-eligible postsecondary coursework to ninth-grade level or above, provides funds through AEFLA, which draws Title II funds under WIA to support AEL, “defined as services or instruction below the postsecond- ary level for individuals who are 16 and over, and who are not enrolled, or required to be enrolled, in secondary school,”30 and provides FSA for CPTPs. Clearly, the government is strongly communicating limits regard- ing how FSA can be legitimately applied at postsecondary institutions while simultaneously funding other postsecondary options for students ineligible for FSA. If any community colleges purposely ignore some FSA regulations, they may do so out of genuine fear that in an environment of dwindling AEL funds (and with the knowledge that in many cases high-quality, local AEL programs are not yet established) students who do not qualify for FSA would effectively be shut out of accessible, affordable postsecondary education. Some HONORING THE LETTER 77 institutions may elect to substitute their judgment for the government’s by awarding FSA to technically ineligible students, believing that solution to be better stewardship than forcing students to self-fund or choose from other postsecondary options (like AEL, continuing education, employment, etc.). However, as long as improper FSA distribution and application continues—and low return on investment for FSA funds is realized—federal fund increases are denied to those who have been deemed eligible for the investment. If demand for postsecondary alternatives increased, funding shortages would have to be addressed; as it stands, community colleges are used to conve- niently warehouse low-skilled community members who are without more attractive postsecondary options and many begin and end their postsecond- ary careers in developmental education. While any community college can certainly offer non–FSA-eligible devel- opmental coursework below ninth grade, all should consider expanding basic skills offerings through continuing education and not-for-credit settings. This would lower costs and rightly shift the burden of cost to individuals and other funding sources, which would incentivize all capable students to commit themselves to developing these skills in the K-12 setting, and eliminate forc- ing taxpayers to pay twice for what those capable could have accomplished earlier. For seriously unprepared, low-skilled adults who do not qualify for FSA, AEL is one free program that they could enroll in so that if they do have a chance of completing a postsecondary program in the future, their FSA has a much greater likelihood of remaining intact for the duration of the program. An example of how seriously unprepared students can be served poorly in an improper postsecondary setting can be seen in the many students who arrive at the community college lacking basic literacy skills and are mechani- cally directed to a placement exam and right into developmental courses. Typically, developmental reading courses do not include the kind of one- on-one reading instruction many of the lowest-skilled community college students genuinely need. Developmental reading instruction in community college settings more commonly entails helping students in a large group setting develop metacognitive awareness and effective strategy application to texts that are at an appropriate level of challenge. Developmental education reading instruction at the community college addresses more commonly the development of students who are reading to learn, not those still learning to read. Faculty teaching developmental courses typically hold advanced degrees in their field of content specialty but are usually not certified adult or special educators, for example—often the very instructors with whom the lowest-skilled students currently enroll- ing at community colleges would benefit from coming in contact. When enrolled in developmental education settings, instead of AEL or perhaps with literacy organizations in the community that specialize in teaching emerging early readers, very low-skilled students are actually harmed because they are not matched with the right kind of instruction for their needs and the resources of multiple sources are not effectively or efficiently utilized. 78 COMMUNITY COLLEGES AND THE ACCESS EFFECT

Open-door community colleges are harmed by their own open admissions policy because students whose educational needs could not be well-served in that setting to begin with are counted in the student success data.

Liberal FSA Award Attracts the Wrong Crowd For a number of reasons, community colleges have become magnets for some of society’s less upstanding citizens, making the reduction of improper FSA award potentially a matter of life and death in some cases. Because com- munity college Pell recipients are college students known to be in possession of cash refunds after tuition and books are paid for, they can become targets for brazen drug pushers who use the transient nature of the student body to their advantage, hiding in plain sight and blending in with the ubiquitous backpacks, looking for customers with healthy Pell refunds to burn. One author recently sent a student she was counseling to retrieve paperwork from another office across campus. An hour later, he entered her office with his head lowered and after she asked what was wrong, he reported with shame and a note of anger that he had been approached by two different drug deal- ers on campus, a regular occurrence for young black males on that campus, according to the student. In another instance, one of the authors shared her observation with a friend that the number of court-ordered offenders being assigned as a con- dition of their parole or probation to her courses was rising along with increased student performance accountability. A stunned look swept across her friend’s face, and she proceeded to explain that her cousin, previously an outstanding student and model citizen from a stable, upper-middle-class family, had chosen to attend a community college after high school because he and his parents believed that to be the best place for him to get a good start on his college education. Unfortunately, when he fell in with the wrong crowd at the community college, he began using drugs and had become hopelessly addicted to heroin. The author’s friend said it had never occurred to her prior to their conversation that the community college was anything but a great place to get an affordable college education and it was clear she now considered his struggle with addiction less as random chance. Fifteen years earlier in her first developmental writing class at the local community college in the city she lived in while attending graduate school, out of her class of twenty or so, four or five students were required by law to wear ankle bracelet monitors. The author had to call 911 one night after a court-ordered student who had used drugs during a break subsequently went into convulsions during a lesson on effectively employing transitions between paragraphs. While forcing troubled individuals to enroll in a higher education setting may seem like a wise decision (or the best option of those available), the judges encouraging or commanding students to effectively enroll at the open door community college against their will, attend regu- larly, and hound instructors weekly for signatures to verify attendance nei- ther have to teach or learn in those classrooms nor have their professional HONORING THE LETTER 79 abilities measured by student performance. Commonly, court-ordered stu- dents are exceedingly bitter about having to attend school and tend not to contribute to a positive classroom climate while failing to personally benefit because they refuse to engage meaningfully, and their disingenuous enroll- ment puts the success of other students at significant risk. Weeks after a seri- ous student-on-student attack at the community college where one author works, a campus police officer expressed his strong belief that college poli- cies were desperately needed to reduce the number of students on campus without a sincere interest in postsecondary education, explaining that serious behavioral incidents had been growing over the years.31 In a five-month period between late 2012 and April 2013, multiple community colleges were the sites of particularly violent crimes, including shootings and stabbings, some of which resulted in fatalities.32 Community college counselors are experiencing a dramatic rise in the number of students they counsel with severe psychological issues at the same time their caseloads increasing and their job responsibilities being diversified.33 The American College Counseling Association reported an uptick in both number of stu- dents with severe psychological problems along with a rise in the overall 1:1,600 ratio of college counselors to clients.34 In an Inside Higher Ed arti- cle covering recent violent crime at community college, Scott Jaschik high- lighted some of the security vulnerabilities unique to community colleges, such as providing appropriate security for numerous small branches that aim to provide broad access to citizens living anywhere in the community.35 In January, 2013, a convicted felon with a mental health condition, whose prior probation required him to take medication, returned to his for-profit career college after becoming upset at losing his financial aid and shot his financial aid officer in the chest with a 9-millimeter semiautomatic handgun with its serial numbers filed off. Fortunately, the college employee survived.36 At the time of the shooting, the student was a fugitive from the law, wanted for violating terms of his probation stemming from another off-campus attack. The career college’s owner observed about the shooting that “This could happen anywhere.”37 And, yet, open admission higher education institutions that liberally award FSA increase the odds of attracting—in addition to the most capable and earnest students—individuals who opportunistically view campuses as venues in which to make quick money and/or conduct criminal activity. The more open door institutions can attract genuinely eligible stu- dents while restricting financial support and access to those who are not, the less chance activity detracting from a positive learning environment will be invited on campus and the more funds will be available to increase support to eligible students who need it. The bottom line is that FSA always was and still is only intended to sup- port legitimate students enrolled in legitimate programs leading to approved postsecondary certificates or degrees. It is not intended to support any other activity than that of qualified students legitimately pursuing postsecond- ary credentials, which is why all recipients must be enrolled in a genuine program of study to be eligible, as well as in possession of academic skills 80 COMMUNITY COLLEGES AND THE ACCESS EFFECT that indicate a reasonable likelihood they could succeed in a program. Yet, consumer protections built into FSA are not always followed, and recently intensified Satisfactory Academic Progress requirements often do not have a chance to kick in before many students take the money and leave. Students responsible for creating an unsafe and unsecure learning environment are particularly attracted to easy FSA at the open access institution and even a short stay can cause immense harm to innocent community members, unfortunately. Judicious and meritocratic FSA award should be standard operating proce- dure, as already dictated by FSA regulations. FSA restrictions aim to protect both student and taxpayer, but they are only as effective as those trusted to enforce them. All parties involved must follow both the letter and the spirit of FSA regulations, clearly communicating through deed and word that a new era of responsibility governs the award of public support for postsecondary education enrollment. Unchecked access to FSA does not improve postsec- ondary completion, nor does it have a null effect; non-judicious award of FSA indisputably lowers postsecondary completion. Cutting off the imprudent flow of improperly awarded FSA would greatly assist in increasing credential earning by restricting financial support to committed and capable students and motivating others to properly commit to their postsecondary education and the future. Chapter 7

The Disabilities Dilemma

Beginning in the early 1990s, many states began either allowing or legis- latively requiring their local education agencies (LEAs), or public schools, to award standard high school diplomas when students with disabilities met their individualized education program (IEP) goals. IEP goals for students with more significant cognitive disabilities, like intellectual disabilities (ID), for example, are often written so that some or all of a state’s core curriculum requirements are reduced in rigor—often substantially—or modified to an appropriate level of challenge per the individual student’s needs. An example of why modifications are needed can be seen in the IEP terms of a second- ary student with ID enrolled in 100 percent core curriculum modification. As a high school sophomore, the student was reading at a fourth-grade- level equivalency, and his or her written postsecondary transition plan was to attend college to become either a veterinarian or a lawyer.1 As long as this student continued to meet his or her IEP goals, he or she would receive a standard high school diploma, indistinguishable to third parties from the diploma received by peers with and without disabilities who were required to meet the minimum state requirements to earn their diplomas on standard state core curriculum. According to Taylor and Colasanti’s review of state policies, by 2007, forty-three states either (a) were not administering a high school exit exami- nation, (b) could waive it entirely for students with IEPs, or (c) could require the student with an IEP to pass an “alternative test or measure.”2 In some cases, alternate assessments may truly be alternate forms of exit exams with the same rigor, but such language strongly suggests that lower performance standards are negotiated for at least some students with disabilities, though not in every state. Fewer than ten states operate, it seems, like Louisiana and Virginia, strictly requiring all standard high school diploma recipients to meet the same graduation standards. Reviewing a decade of data on the IDEA Data Accountability site, California, Florida, Georgia, New York, and Oregon3 are the other states with clear records of awarding a very low number of standard diplomas to exiting students in the reporting category of mental 82 COMMUNITY COLLEGES AND THE ACCESS EFFECT retardation compared with certificates of completion, for example, suggest- ing a single performance standard for the standard high school diploma is enforced in these seven states. At least as late as 2007, Louisiana was awarding the alternative certificate of completion and Virginia the Modified Standard Diploma to students with disabilities unlikely to legitimately earn the standard diploma.4 The general policy effect can be seen in these states’ low ratios of regular high school diplomas to certificates of completion awarded to students under Part B of IDEA in the reporting category of mental retardation. In 2010–2011, for example, Louisiana awarded only 27 standard diplomas to students in the reporting category of mental retardation compared with 520 certificates of completion.5 Virginia, in the same reporting year, awarded only 54 standard diplomas to students in the category of mental retardation compared to 1003 certificates of completion. On the other hand, in that same year, the fol- lowing 12 states combined to award over 5,500 standard diplomas and zero alternative certificates of completion to students in the reporting category of mental retardation: Arizona, Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Minnesota, Montana, New Jersey, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, and South Dakota.6 Authors of a 2007 study reported that students with disabilities were more likely to receive an alternative to the regular high school diploma “in states that had implemented high school exit exams,”7 and also found that “students with mental retardation and autism received nontraditional exit certificates at higher rates than students with other types of disabilities.”8 In other words, where states required a performance standard to be met as a condition of receiving a standard high school diploma, students with disabilities—and specifically those with ID and autism—were less likely to earn one. The authors of the study were puzzled by the cause, writing, “It is not completely clear why so many more students with disabilities exit pub- lic education with nontraditional exit documents than their (non-disabled) peers.”9 The study’s authors next advanced the argument that because over 75 percent of the students who were awarded nontraditional certificates in 2002 possessed disabilities, “advocates . . . must look skeptically upon a policy that disproportionately affects students with disabilities.”10 Their reasoning for recommending a policy audit? Not possessing a high school diploma negatively affects important life areas, like employment and earning s. While the negative consequences of not possessing a high school diploma are inarguable, only from an entitlement paradigm could it be reasoned that students not capable of meeting the minimum state standards should be given one anyway to artificially increase their employability and earnings, a perspective shared by some policymakers who have approved the award to some students allowed to meet lesser standards than those required of others for the same diploma. Predictably, states without high school exit exams have awarded fewer certificates of completion (an alternative to the diploma which is historically valueless in the marketplace) over time—a reduction from a peak of 7.53 percent in 1995 down to 3.24 percent in THE DISABILITIES DILEMMA 83

2003,11 revealing a clear trend toward liberal award of the standard high school diploma. In some cases, motives less altruistic than inclusion are probably at least partly responsible for the policy shift toward liberal high school diploma award for students with disabilities enrolled in modified core curriculum. Awarding a regular high school diploma ends a school district’s obligation to provide for students with disabilities receiving special education services under IDEA. Public school districts are required to serve students with dis- abilities up to age 21 or graduation, an obligation that suggests some may award the regular high school diploma to hasten the severance of financial responsibility for students who might otherwise stay well beyond age 18 and who not infrequently require expensive accommodations, equipment, personnel, and/or paraprofessionals. One veteran public school superin- tendent suggested that LEAs who have a choice are eager to award regu- lar high school diplomas over certificates of completion because diplomas increase graduation rates and plump all-important AYP data reporting under NCLB.12 The award of the regular high school diploma to students who meet IEP goals on modified core curriculum, while appearing to benefit LEAs in the K-12 system, inflicts many costs and consequences upon the open door community college.

Much Is Lost When Everybody “Wins” The value of the high school diploma, assigned by third parties, is attenuated by the practice of LEAs awarding the standard diploma for different stan- dards of academic performance. Historically, a high school diploma signaled to third parties that a graduate had demonstrated reasonable command of a state-required curriculum and very likely possessed traits universally prized by employers and colleges, such as problem-solving, persistence, time man- agement, and a sense of duty/work ethic. Since employers have been taught over time that a high school diploma does not reliably signify command of any body of knowledge or set of skills, several unfortunate consequences have resulted. For one, the accomplishments of high school students with and with- out disabilities who earned their diplomas while enrolled in standard core curriculum are negated in the view of third parties—potential employers and transfer institutions, to name the two most common—when the same diploma is able to be procured by students who did not meet those same requirements. This nullified worth of the high school diploma has contrib- uted to postsecondary degree inflation, since employers who once relied upon a high school diploma to communicate an expected minimal level of intellectual ability and academic skill now struggle to verify those capacities in potential employees. In a 2012 Chronicle of Higher Education series questioning whether or not higher education has developed into “an engine of inequality,”13 George Leef described college degree inflation, and importantly pointed out that 84 COMMUNITY COLLEGES AND THE ACCESS EFFECT the arms race for postsecondary credentials “has the strongest impact on the poor . . . (because) (t)hey have the most difficulty affording the cost of college in money and time.”14 Low-income students cannot outspend their wealthier peers and remain enrolled in college indefinitely, decorating their résumés with employer-attracting advanced degrees that in some cases are more ornament than substance. In an attempt to stem the losses associated with hiring and then terminating unfit employees or suffering the many costs of employing unqualified workers, employers have turned to preferen- tially hiring those in possession of postsecondary credentials to regain the benefits previously communicated in shorthand by the high school diploma about a person’s skill, ability, and responsibility levels. As a consequence, now even when job requirements do not necessitate hiring someone with an associate’s degree or higher, employers choose to snub high school graduates as a matter of practice, which has caused signifi- cant problems for a group most often overlooked in the completion discus- sion: students only in possession of that credential. Because the high school diploma now carries so little redeemable value, Americans seeking to cer- tify their skills and abilities have few choices but to enroll in postsecondary institutions in pursuit of advanced credentials. Capable, low-income citizens with high school diplomas are the most punished by this system when they do not possess postsecondary credentials, often for reasons directly related to financial incapacity. Granted, the high school diploma does not com- mand much monetarily in the marketplace these days, but one major reason is that it can no longer be depended upon to certify any minimum measure of competence. If a high school graduate successful in the standard second- ary curriculum does not immediately enroll in pursuit of a postsecondary credential—for any reason—they cannot count on the benefits that should accompany the diploma they earned, simply because it was given away to others, along with any remaining value.

Successful Inclusion and High School Graduation There are appropriate ways to include and honor high school students with disabilities on graduation day who do not meet state graduation requirements without neutralizing the academic achievements of students who met state standards while enrolled in non-modified curriculum to legitimately earn the standard high school diploma. Kaitlyn’s Law, signed into law in 2009 by Missouri Governor Nixon in time for that spring’s high school graduations, serves as a model of sensitivity and common sense in educating and accom- modating students in the K-12 system with special needs. Kaitlyn’s Law allows students with IEPs who will continue to receive special education services beyond the first four years of high school to participate in their high school’s graduation ceremony and all related graduation activities alongside the peers with whom they entered high school. Importantly, Kaitlyn’s Law endeavors to reduce the social stigma felt by students with disabilities who need to continue working in high school on IEP goals past the traditional THE DISABILITIES DILEMMA 85 four years by appropriately including in celebrating with their same-age peers the important milestone of the high school graduation ceremony. Awarding standard high school diplomas to students who meet IEP goals that do not equal or exceed the state’s minimum graduation requirements of students without IEPs, on the other hand, can only be classified as either inappropriate deference to the demands of the students with disabilities and their advocates or a misguided attempt to engineer equality. Whereas Kaitlyn’s Law thoughtfully takes into consideration the feelings of students with disabilities in a reasonable manner and does not in any way diminish the academic achievements of other students, the awarding of standard high school diplomas to students who meet their IEP goals unjustly benefits one group of students at the expense of all others.

Misleading Transcription States often do more than grant their LEAs the option of awarding the regu- lar high school diploma to students with disabilities for meeting their IEP goals; they frequently command them to do so. And while some states take measures to impress upon their LEAs that the law allows for notation on a transcript when coursework has been modified,15 not all observe the prac- tice. Others are probably unaware of what the law allows and elect to err on the side of concealing modified curriculum, believing disguise to be in the best interest of students with disabilities and perhaps not perceiving any harm to others. Known cases exist of parents successfully petitioning high schools to alter the way modified courses are transcribed, to cloak the fact that their children’s high school diplomas were awarded for performance on modi- fied core curriculum.16 In the past, for example, these courses might have been transcribed with an asterisk mapped to an explanation of the nature of modification; after successful petition, however, course numbers might only be altered in the slightest such that “MTH 20: Geometry” might appear as “MTH 21: Geometry.” Such altered numbering would signal only to the originating high school’s officials that MTH 21 is modified geometry but would effectively shroud the rigor reduction from third parties reviewing the transcript without inside knowledge. The acts of allowing students enrolled in modified curriculum to pro- cure standard high school diplomas for meeting IEP goals and of improperly transcribing their academic performance run parallel to the growing phe- nomenon Marx and Meeler described in Academic Forgiveness: The Price of Pardon, whereby university students are allowed to “selectively omit poor grades from their GPAs, thus offering a new, manipulative path to greater retention and graduation rates.”17 Ultimately, Marx and Meeler compare the different conditions under which students are able to earn the same degree and GPA to “the rewards of a midway arcade. Some people can knock all the clowns over with their first three throws . . . and win a stuffed animal, while others can spend endless hours and tokens trying to get the same prize.”18 86 COMMUNITY COLLEGES AND THE ACCESS EFFECT

The authors extended the comparison between students and carnival game participants receiving the same reward for different performances, “If you see two people walking around the arcade with giant teddy bears, there is no way to differentiate between them.”19 The authors ultimately con- cluded that, like the indiscriminate award of regular high school diplomas to students who do not meet the same state curriculum standards as others, social inequity is not neutralized, but further entrenched when some post- secondary students are allowed to effectively airbrush their academic records to create the illusion of performance equal to the unadulterated transcript of an accomplished student. The failure of high schools to accurately convey academic performance on transcripts so that third parties can independently interpret a student’s performance creates an illusion to outsiders of a high performance that never occurred. Besides being problematic in other ways, this practice causes seri- ous problems at the open door community college, where students are made eligible for FSA in violation of the spirit of the regulation that requires eli- gible students to have earned a high school diploma via reasonably rigorous curriculum. The Office for Civil Rights in the U.S. Department of Education makes a clear distinction between report cards and transcripts and how academic and personal information about students with disabilities may be commu- nicated on each of these documents, especially as to how Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, IDEA, and the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) apply. Specifically, report cards are viewed by The Office for Civil Rights as communication to a student’s parents about “their child’s progress or level of achievement in specific classes, course content or curriculum”20 and are not released by LEAs to third parties, whereas official transcripts pro- vided to third parties by LEAs are precisely “intended to inform postsecond- ary institutions or prospective employers of a student’s academic credentials and achievements”21 [emphasis added]. Report cards, therefore, are allowed include information about a student’s disability status and may explain any accommodations awarded to students with disabilities. Transcripts that are released to third parties, however, are never allowed to identify a student as having a disability, which is why mention of accommodations on a tran- script is disallowed, since that would clearly indicate to a third party that the student has a disability, a clear privacy violation. Because the purpose of transcripts is to officially and accurately convey to third parties a student’s academic performance and earned credentials, how- ever, transcripts are allowed to communicate that modified curriculum was enrolled in for two reasons. Since modified curriculum is not reserved exclu- sively for students with disabilities, transcribing that information would not communicate to a third party that an enrolled student has a disability. More importantly, in keeping with the spirit of equal treatment in Section 504 and Title II of the ADA, “Transcript notations concerning enrollment in differ- ent classes, course content, or curriculum by students with disabilities would THE DISABILITIES DILEMMA 87 be consistent with similar transcript designations for classes such as advanced placement, honors, and basic and remedial instruction.”22 Making clear to a third party that modified curriculum was part of a student’s academic experience is not only the technically correct way to tran- scribe performance, but it is also fair—to the students enrolled in the stan- dard score curriculum who met the state standards and to the third parties relying on transcripts to make investment decisions with valuable resources. Denotation of modified curriculum can be carried out in the same man- ner on a transcript as on a report card. In both cases, according to an offi- cial with the Office for Civil Rights in the U.S. Department of Education, “this distinction . . . may be achieved by using an asterisk or other symbol meant to reference the modified or alternate education curriculum as long as the statements . . . provide an explanation of the student’s progress that is as informative and effective as the explanation provided for students with- out disabilities.”23 In other words, when it comes to official transcription of performance for students with disabilities, no distinction should be made for disability status; every effort should be made to accurately record and convey academic achievement. Grades awarded to high school students with disabilities enrolled in mod- ified core courses have also been known to be calculated into students’ GPA in no way different from their peers enrolled in the more arduous, state- required core curriculum.24 In some cases, this practice has resulted in stu- dents enrolled in modified curriculum receiving higher class rankings than peers enrolled in standard core curriculum, which has serious ramifications for those competing for valuable, merit-based scholarships and attempting to gain entry to postsecondary settings with competitive admissions. At least one high school awarded students on modified core curriculum competi- tive academic awards based on their stellar GPAs at a school-wide assembly before administrators, realizing what had happened, crafted a policy for the following year detailing what eligibility criteria students must meet to com- pete for awards of academic distinction.25 Inaccurate transcription and indefensible GPA calculation practices cer- tainly call into question the sagacity of the increasingly popular recommen- dation that community colleges consider high school GPA as an additional, legitimate data point to consider when trying to more accurately advise students into community college courses of appropriate rigor.26 While the research leading to the recommendation may be statistically sound in the aggregate, clearly giving weight to high school GPA in community college advising and placement would not be inadvisable in the many cases of stu- dents on modified curriculum whose transcripts do not accurately convey their true academic accomplishments.

Disability Law in the Secondary Environment To understand how and why the population of students with ID has grown at community colleges over the past 20 years, it helps to know a little about 88 COMMUNITY COLLEGES AND THE ACCESS EFFECT the fundamental disability laws governing K-12 and higher education set- tings and how they differ by the setting. Public Law 94–142, passed in 1975, was originally entitled the Education for All Handicapped Children Act.27 Out of respect for and in deference to the request of persons with disabilities, the act was renamed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in 1990 to employ person-first language. That same year, the ADA, applicable to the general population and to settings other than those strictly educational, was signed into law by President George H. W. Bush. Though IDEA was updated with amendments in 1997 and 2004, the heart of the 1975 law still exists and exclusively addresses the educational needs of students with disabilities. IDEA built upon the success of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, a disability rights law that like the ADA does not exclusively apply to students in educational settings.28 IDEA ensures “two basic substantive rights of eligible children with dis- abilities: (1) the right to a free appropriate public education, and (2) the right to that education in the least restrictive environment.”29 The federal govern- ment requires that states receiving federal funding must educate any child with a disability in the state public school system or pay for and provide an appropriate placement from age three until high school graduation or the age of 21.30 IDEA only applies to students enrolled in the pre–K-12 public education system. A separate set of federally mandated early intervention services applies to those with disabilities under three years old, and IDEA does not extend to postsecondary education.

Disability Law in the Postsecondary Environment Upon graduating from high school or reaching age 21, students with dis- abilities are no longer protected under IDEA, and federal laws protecting all American citizens with disabilities, in particular both the ADA and Section 504, pick up at that point and guarantee postsecondary students with disabilities, if they are otherwise qualified, access to programs receiving federal funding. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 states:

No otherwise qualified individual with a disability in the United States . . . shall, solely by reason of her or his disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any pro- gram or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.31

In other words, the law prohibits discrimination against persons with dis- abilities who are otherwise qualified to participate in federally funded pro- grams. Section 504 applies to all higher education institutions in America that accept federal funding, which includes any institution participating in the FSA program. Section 504 and the ADA allow students with disabilities to use approved accommodations when attempting to qualify for admission and while enrolled in college, provided that the accommodations do not substantially alter program rigor or reduce it in any way. THE DISABILITIES DILEMMA 89

No law guarantees access to federally-funded programs when persons with disabilities do not meet eligibility requirements that apply to all others, which is distinctly different from the free and appropriate, least restrictive environment guarantees built into the secondary setting by IDEA. It is this striking difference in legal access to K-12 and postsecondary settings that permits federally funded higher education institutions to deny admission to a properly accommodated student with a disability, for example, who does not meet the institution’s established admissions standards. The instructional point is that Section 504 protects persons with disabilities from exclusion purely on the basis of their disability while simultaneously protecting admis- sions and performance standards in higher education settings.

A Shift to Postsecondary Transition and Inclusion for Students with ID Only since 1990 have postsecondary transition services for students with disabilities been a legally required component of secondary students’ IEPs under IDEA.32 A continuing emphasis on meaningful postsecondary tran- sition for students with disabilities can be seen in the 2004 IDEA amend- ments, which required that “all children with disabilities have available to them . . . special education and related services designed to . . . prepare them for further education, employment and independent living.”33 The 1992 amendments to Section 504 further emphasized the rights of those with dis- abilities to exercise self-determination by making choices for themselves and participating fully in all of society’s major activities, including employment and education.34 Assumed in self-determination are the skills of “self-regula- tion, self-knowledge, self-reflection, problem solving, goal setting, self-mon- itoring, and decision making.”35 For a variety of reasons, community college campuses present an ideal environment for the postsecondary student with ID to further develop important skills of self-determination, what Wehmeyer described as “the right and capacity of individuals to exert control over and direct their lives.”36 Summarily, self-determination represents the combined store of resiliency and skills that enables individuals to successfully self-advocate throughout their lives in a variety of settings, important skills for all adults, but especially for those with ID. Advocates for students with disabilities, and especially for those with ID, know that access to all that a college campus has to offer can help postsecondary students flourish, in part, by providing an ideal environ- ment in which to develop their self-determination skills, as well as other skills necessary for success in a number of life areas. Importantly, research shows that parents and students do not perceive a lot of meaningful venues in soci- ety for youth with disabilities to develop self-determination.37 Among the fundamental goals of the 1997 IDEA amendments were guiding children to reach their individual potential and helping children “be prepared to lead productive, independent, adult lives, to the maximum extent possible.”38 Further underscoring the importance of postsecondary 90 COMMUNITY COLLEGES AND THE ACCESS EFFECT transition services and driving the 2004 IDEA amendments was this con- gressional finding:

Disability is a natural part of the human experience and in no way diminishes the right of individuals to participate in or contribute to society. Improving educational results for children with disabilities is an essential element of our national policy of ensuring equality of opportunity, full participation, independent living, and economic self-sufficiency for individuals with dis- abilities.39

Stroman confirmed a gradual shift in delivery of services for persons with physical, psychiatric, and intellectual disabilities from the “supply side model”40 of government-provided care prevalent in the 1960s and earlier to the current “demand side model”41 that emphasizes person-centered plan- ning and gained traction in the early 1990s. Grigal, Hart, and Paiewonsky also noted an accompanying “shift in the literature in the 1990s”42 from looking at only adults with ID to looking at students with ID. And a suc- cessful 1995 inclusion campaign by The Division on Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities of the Council for Exceptional Children undoubtedly influenced or reinforced many states’ practice of awarding regular high school diplomas for meeting IEP goals when the organiza- tion “issued a position statement recommending that students who required educational services beyond the age of 18 be allowed to graduate with their peers and then continue their education until . . . 22 in age-appropriate set- tings, such as college campuses, and (argued) that federal funds should fol- low the student to the postsecondary setting.”43 Without question, federal legislation and advocacy has encouraged greater inclusion of people with dis- abilities in society over time, and laws governing federally-funded education settings reflect this ideology.

Enrollment Growth of Students with ID at Community Colleges Nationwide, in 2011, out of 371,729 students of ages 18–21 who received special education services under Part B of IDEA, 72,688 were labeled as pos- sessing an ID, the second-largest disability category in this age group behind specific learning disability just over twice the rate at 155,956 s tudents.44 According to figures from the American Council on Education, the percent- age of college freshmen reporting disabilities more than tripled between 1978 and the early 1990s; in 1978, only 2.6 percent of full-time college freshmen reported disabilities, a number that by 1991 had grown to 8.8 p ercent.45 By 2008, the figure had climbed still higher than 10 percent.46 The combina- tion of open admissions, liberal FSA eligibility, and a number of other salient factors, means community colleges serve more students with disabilities than any higher education institution.47 THE DISABILITIES DILEMMA 91

Improper FSA Award and Unsupported Enrollment Lee and Will were wrong when they claimed that students with ID usu- ally don’t qualify for financial aid because they “typically do not receive a regular diploma or (pass) a General Educational Development equivalency test”48 and that students with ID are “also not usually accepted for enroll- ment in a degree or accredited certificate program.”49 They do and they are, and the impact is incredible. In short, community colleges routinely co-enroll both promising, but unprepared, developmental education students and students in college-level courses with students sometimes incapable of locating the correct page in a textbook upon request. It cannot be said that the impact stemming from the unsupported enrollment of community col- lege students with ID in the community college classroom is non-existent or even n egligible—on the students with ID, on their classmates, and even on instructors. Even as there may be some benefits from this enrollment prac- tice, the negative impacts are, in fact, several and costly, and attack the core of why the courses and FSA exist: to support students toward their comple- tion of postsecondary degrees and certificates. Grigal, Hart, and Paiewonsky described students with ID “in many states exit(ing) secondary education with an alternative diploma . . . instead of a typ- ical high school diploma,”50 which is accurate, but they go on to suggest that those students “would not access the (postsecondary education) system in a typical manner, (and would) . . . require significant planning and collabora- tion to gain access.”51 In truth, students with ID have been regularly enroll- ing in credit-bearing coursework at community colleges since at least the early 1990s with no more extraneous planning, support, or accommodations than any other credit-enrolling student would receive, though they should appropriately be enrolled in Certified Postsecondary Transition Programs or others similar so that supported enrollment might be achieved, leading to meaningful postsecondary outcomes. Eisenman and Mancini stressed that “Faculty and administration can be assured that their participation in (a CPTP) for students with ID in no way jeopardizes the integrity of the curriculum, but in fact allows the course to reach more diverse populations.”52 That may be true in the case of sup- ported enrollment; however, the same cannot be said when students with ID walk through the community college’s front door and enroll in devel- opmental education and college-level courses without any of the significant support and planning provided for students enrolled in a CPTP. In the chapter they contributed to Think College! Postsecondary Options for Students with Intellectual Disabilities, Eisenman and Mancini emphasized how very important it is to work with college faculty so that the postsecondary inclu- sion of students with IDs is a success for all parties involved. Throughout the book’s chapters, contributed by a variety of authors, collaboration and communication are consistent themes around successful transition planning and participation in a college setting by students with ID. 92 COMMUNITY COLLEGES AND THE ACCESS EFFECT

Eisenman and Mancini describe one successful postsecondary inclusion arrangement where two students with ID interested in sitting in on a popu- lar music lecture course had been pre-screened by transition program profes- sionals, determined to be capable of maintaining attention for the duration of the class, and not a risk for distracting other students. Special mention was made that the lecture-style class required low interaction from all students and that “(h)ad the class been one that involved frequent group work, the instructor . . . would have wanted some assurance that (the students) could manage . . . interactions independently.”53 Further, the young men were only allowed to register on a space-available basis only, they audited the course, and were not allowed to submit work or take tests because this “would have created additional work for the instructor.”54 They were additionally shad- owed by an education coach who sat several rows behind them to ensure their appropriate participation. These thoughtful considerations when enrolling students with ID in college courses—whether at college-level or developmental—are critically important to the success of postsecondary inclusion, but too often are the exception at open door community colleges. In reality and what is unknown to many reviewing community college student success data in the aggre- gate is that students with ID frequently enroll in developmental courses, and usually without any of the high-touch, personalized transitional support described by Eisenman and Mancini. Unable to qualify at institutions with competitive admissions, students with ID—who in high school self-identified as unable to handle the rigor of the core curriculum required of all other students to receive the stan- dard diploma—flock to open access community colleges. Because of their placement scores, they enroll overwhelmingly in low-level developmental coursework. The range of intellectual ability among students enrolled in developmental education courses—especially in the lower end of a sequence in an open door environment—is now so wide that instructors report the effectiveness of those courses suffers greatly. The negative effect in a class of 20 on learning and persistence of even one unsupported student with ID can be considerable. Faculty at several institutions have admitted to design- ing their lowest developmental education courses not with a belief that most students in them will one day qualify for and succeed in college-level course- work, but rather with the primary intent to protect the rigor of the more advanced developmental courses from the co-enrollment of students who do not stand a reasonable chance of ever exiting the sequence. While other factors undoubtedly also contribute to higher withdrawal rates in the lowest developmental courses, the phenomenon is undeniably due in part to the spread of student abilities concentrated in a developmental education sequence’s lowest course with no entrance requirement. Promising, low-skilled students find themselves constantly co-enrolled with peers who were educated in self-contained special education programs in high school. Low-skilled students with a good chance of completing a college credential frequently come to believe they have been misplaced and/or get frustrated THE DISABILITIES DILEMMA 93 with peer behavior inappropriate for a college learning environment. Capable students drop developmental courses without consulting their professors, leaving them in a wake of lost potential to teach the remaining students, often those least likely to qualify for college-level coursework and complete a program of study. The high withdrawal rate in the lowest courses is anti- thetical to the professed retention and student engagement effects of offering such courses, especially since the most capable students can most profit from continued college enrollment often disengage while those who are unlikely to profit enthusiastically persist. A colleague of one of the authors glumly summarized the co-enrollment effect this way: “Most who have stopped coming are able enough. Those who are unable still come.”55 One of the unintended negative side effects of awarding regular high school diplomas to students with disabilities for meeting IEP goals based on modified core curriculum is that those students effectively become eligible for FSA in a violation of the spirit of the regulation that resolutely states a recipient must be in possession of a non-dubious high school diploma or the equivalent. Multiple negative effects cascade from illegitimate FSA eligibil- ity; one is that public funding is committed to unqualified students who do not pass classes and complete postsecondary credentials as intended by the investment. The price of funding unqualified students is that under- investment occurs in at least two other directions that would produce higher return for postsecondary completion: qualified students who would produc- tively use an FSA increase, and the creation, development, and maintenance of CPTPs and other alternative postsecondary education programs and experiences that could much better serve the unique postsecondary educa- tion needs of students with ID. Federal regulations make it clear that FSA should not be used to support in an intense, college-bound, developmental education setting a student who would send these emails to a professor:

“i forgot what we were exposes to have for tomorrow class so i really sorry but will you let me now i really sorry again.”56 and “i was just letting you know i will not be at school tommorrow because my necie has to get Surgery tommorrow so i was woundering if I cound maybe give you my paper on wednseday and will it be count late if i don’t give it to you on monday because Monday I was going to go to the writen center after school so i cound get help with it.”57

It comes as no surprise to community college faculty who have taught in the developmental classroom over the past 20 years—and even college course instructors at institutions with laissez-faire admissions—that these emails from a student with an ID enrolled in a low-level developmental course are a convenience sample and do not represent the lowest communication skills of enrolling students. With all sincerity and compassion, the veteran instructor who shared these emails described the social dexterity of the student who wrote them as “infantile,”58 while estimating her mental age of functioning 94 COMMUNITY COLLEGES AND THE ACCESS EFFECT to be approximately that of an 11-year-old. The instructor shared that while college officials involved with the student’s enrollment at the college knew that the student had a significant cognitive disability, they chose to ignore addressing it when registering her in the developmental course “to be politi- cally correct.”59 Another student enrolled unsupported in a developmental reading course, whose mother described him as autistic, faced a corner in the front of an author’s classroom once and incessantly shook a box of chalk he had taken from the tray while his group members attempted to give a presentation to classmates over the din. Earlier in the semester, the same student had walked over to the window in the middle of class, pointed at the bus stop in front of the college, and informed his classmates in a childlike manner that he liked to ride the bus “because it takes me places I like to go.” On another occa- sion, walking behind a student with a severe ID and verbally directing him to a conference room to discuss his community college enrollment goals, one of the authors instructed the student to turn left down a hallway. When he instead turned right at the junction, she called after him and informed him that their meeting was in the opposite direction. When they entered the conference room, she specifically asked him to choose a seat at one of the rectangular tables so that they could sit across from one another; he sat down, however, at the only other kind of table in the room, a crescent- shaped conference table.

Enrollment Goals of Students with ID in Postsecondary Settings Ultimately, what has developed at open door community colleges all over America is a classic case of competing interests. Community colleges offer intensive developmental courses to prepare students for success in college- level curriculum, but the advocates of students with ID—who understandably view the community college as an attractive postsecondary venue in which the students can develop critically important self-determination skills— frequently maintain very different goals for enrollment. While students with ID enrolled in developmental coursework frequently express similarly lofty goals like those of their college peers without disabilities, such as plans to earn graduate degrees, the primary goal of parents tends to be gaining access to a reasonably safe postsecondary venue in which their children can social- ize, exercise self-determination, self-actualize, and learn. An excerpt from a publication of The Institute for Community Inclusion reveals the perspective of advocates on getting students with ID on college campuses:

The benefits of attending college for individuals with intellectual disabilities can be measured in their growth in a number of areas, including academic and personal skill building, independence, self-advocacy, and self-confidence and new friendships. For individuals with disabilities, this growth is also reflected THE DISABILITIES DILEMMA 95

in increased self-esteem, when they begin to see themselves as enjoying what their same age peers without disabilities are experiencing. Being part of cam- pus life, taking classes (whether auditing or for credit), joining student orga- nizations, and learning to navigate a world of high expectations leads to the development of skills and confidence needed for successful adulthood.60

One of the authors, whose professional licensure certifies her to teach stu- dents with ID from preschool to age 21, has advocated her entire career for community colleges to more appropriately and ethically serve students with ID. In her 2010 dissertation work, she sought to determine the enrollment motivations of students with ID, who repeatedly failed low-level develop- mental courses, to verify what they and their advocates hoped to accomplish through enrollment so that community colleges might respond by creating more suitable programs and experiences than the developmental education courses the students were repeatedly failing. Students with ID reported in interviews that they chose to enroll at the community college for reasons identical to the most intellectually capable college students. More than any other reason, they enrolled because they firmly believed they were intellectu- ally bright and, therefore, felt college was an ideal postsecondary setting for them. They additionally enrolled in pursuit of degrees to improve their self- worth and employability, because they were inspired by and/or prompted by others (primarily, family and friends) to enroll, to meet their social needs, and because they did not perceive a more attractive postsecondary option. The students were provided a rating scale associated with various postsec- ondary education milestones and asked to estimate their course-passing and credential-earning possibilities; their parents were provided with the same scale via survey. The results yielded quantifiable evidence that the percep- tions of the two groups of the students’ potential for postsecondary creden- tial attainment were quite dissimilar. Overall, the parents displayed much greater awareness of the limitations imposed by their children’s disabilities on their academic abilities than did their children. Nevertheless, the parents acquiesced when their children expressed the strong desire to attend college, a wish that could most reasonably be fulfilled at an open door community college. Much research confirms the benefits students with ID receive by being included with non-disabled peers and merely having the ability to socialize with them.61 In fact, one student in the author’s study was described by her mother as “socially . . . stunted and far behind her peers,” and her mother shared, “Quite honestly, I’m mostly encouraging her to go to school to ‘socialize’ her.”62 Parents know the community college experience is over- whelmingly beneficial for their children on many levels, even if it turns out they do not gain significantly from the experience academically. Neubert, Moon, and Grigal confirmed that often for students with ID, the “com- munity college is the first post-secondary experience and (it) provides a natural setting for integrated experiences with students ages 18–21 with- out disabilities.”63 In a world with few postsecondary options as attractive, 96 COMMUNITY COLLEGES AND THE ACCESS EFFECT parents are pleased their children have found, if by no other measure than its enrollment policy, an accepting postsecondary environment in the open door community college. Advocates for students with ID also continue to push for greater inclusion on college campuses in part because college enrollment is viewed as such an important social benchmark to reach in the lives of American youth.64 In one interview, when the author asked a former student in her forties who lived with her father to share any fears or concerns she had of not being enrolled in college, she sighed and said, “If I wasn’t in school, I’d be depressed. Hurt.”65 When the author asked the student why she would feel that way, she spoke of her brother and sister having college degrees and said, “I told my dad . . . I would feel like a complete jerk or a failure that I can’t match them.” She described how all of her siblings were married with children, and how she held no hope for marriage and children. Attending college, she expressed, was the one major life area where she felt she might accomplish something on par with her siblings. In a moment that captured the essence of why she continued to enroll despite repeated failure of the lowest developmen- tal courses, the usually ebullient student’s face clouded over. She raised her voice slightly and expressed with frustration, “I just feel like: ‘Why can’t I be like them?’ ”66

Lengthy Developmental Education Sequences The students with ID who began enrolling heavily at community colleges in the 1990s are partially responsible for the community college response of designing longer sequences of developmental coursework that now dip into pre-K and kindergarten curriculum, though low-skilled students without ID share responsibility, as well. Ultimately, the lengthy course sequences that expanded downward were created in response to an extraordinarily differ- ent population of students walking through community college open doors than those for whom the curriculum and college was originally designed. Thus, mandatory assessment and placement gained traction across the nation into the 1990s, and developmental course sequences descended from college-level courses, deeper and deeper into low-level primary schoolwork. Unfortunately, few community colleges questioned whether or not the grand staircases of developmental courses they built to theoretically guide students into college-level courses were reasonably traversable. Often, even when stu- dents pass a developmental course and are qualified to enroll in the next one in the sequence, they do not continue. As much research demonstrates: the longer a developmental sequence is, the more leakage in the pipeline occurs at the exit/entry joints, especially for students starting at the lowest levels who have the most junctions to navigate.67 The long sequences of developmental coursework and common practice of using one high-stakes placement test in a mandatory assessment and place- ment environment naturally some students tested into and were required to take courses beneath their skill levels. This incidence has emboldened THE DISABILITIES DILEMMA 97 some completion advocates to promote and/or enact sweeping reforms, like eliminating developmental education offerings altogether or placing most or all entering students in college-level courses with support. Clearly, though, some have unjustifiably drawn too strict a causal connection between length of developmental education sequence and non-completion where much cor- relation exists, laying an undue amount of the blame for low completion rates on the length of educational experience. They either ignore the reality or fail to realize that students’ entering skills and abilities account greatly for the perfect correlation between level of developmental coursework tested into and sequence and credential completion.68 Those promoting the accel- eration of low-skilled students into college courses—even with embedded support—ignore the fact that developmental education enrollment grew throughout the 1990s in direct response to calls for accountability, particu- larly from college-level instructors whose courses were overrun with students exhibiting severely low reading, writing, computing, and thinking skills and that community college students with significant cognitive disabilities have grown exponentially since the early 1990s in both number and variety in diagnosis. After being hired in the late 1990s into her English department specifically to teach developmental education courses, one of the authors was informed by her new colleagues that her credentials stood out among all candidates because she possessed both a degree and teaching license in special educa- tion, rarities on a college English faculty, where most have advanced degrees in rhetoric and composition or literature. Many expressed relief when she arrived because they were at a loss for how to appropriately serve the grow- ing enrollment of students with ID in courses intended to prepare them for success in college-level courses. Some had hoped the author would bring teaching techniques with her to help everyone prepare students with ID for college-level work; they were disappointed to learn that no combination of accommodations and teaching techniques could offset the effects of low cog- nition and prepare students with ID who self-identified as being intellectu- ally incapable of handling a standard core high school curriculum to succeed in college-level coursework. Interestingly, because so few community college faculty members and administrators possess special education backgrounds—and particularly because administrators were not in developmental classrooms on a regular basis to personally witness the dramatically changing student body in the 1990s—many of those responsible for approving lower and lower basic skills courses and enacting mandatory assessment and placement policies expressed confusion over the years as to why such changes were suddenly needed. They didn’t know states were allowing some students to meet significantly lower academic standards while being awarded the same standard high school diplomas as their peers. They were unaware of the self-determination and postsecondary transition movements involving students with ID that swirled around campus in the community at large. What all policymakers who led efforts to adopt more restrictive policies were certain of, though, is that their 98 COMMUNITY COLLEGES AND THE ACCESS EFFECT institutions would be acting irresponsibly if they continued to allow such unprepared students to enroll in college-level courses at will—for example, in classes with potentially dangerous lab settings or in courses with highly demanding reading/critical thinking requirements, such as philosophy.

Genuine Safety Concerns The safety and associated liability of unsupported students with ID on a col- lege campus is a real concern that goes relatively unaddressed because commu- nity college administrators are often unaware of the enrollment and potential dangers. At community colleges that allow more liberal access to the col- lege curriculum (those that lack mandatory assessment and/or placement), unsupported students with ID are as likely to enroll in biology, history, and philosophy as they are to enroll in developmental courses. In fact, science lab- oratory safety concerns in relation to the enrollment of students with ID was cited at one author’s institution as a reason for instituting mandatory place- ment into developmental reading courses for those who tested into them. In a recent case, the mother of a student with ID burst into an adminis- trator’s office, demanding that campus police be summoned. Unaware of the students’ disability status and expecting more explanation, the administrative assistant paused, and the mother began frantically screaming, “Call them! Call them now! My daughter is missing!”69 As the administrative assistant was giving campus police a description of the student over the phone, she became confused when the mother stated her daughter was 18 years old. Both the police and the administrative assistant were unsure as to why locat- ing a young adult on a college campus rose to the level of an emergency. The mother then described her daughter as having the mental age of the average 15-year-old and explained that because she had not arrived at their predetermined meeting spot after class, the mother was certain she had been lured away by a male classmate the daughter had expressed interest in. The student walked up as her mother was relaying to a campus police offi- cer information about “her daughter’s diminished capacity and the boy in class”70 and reminded her angry and embarrassed mother that she attended a third class on that particular day of the week. The officer told the adminis- trative assistant that “this wasn’t the first incident involving (the student).”71 Grigal and Hart, in fact, caution parents considering the college campus as a setting for their children with IDs that, “Parents expecting high levels of student supervision, personal contact with professors, and daily or weekly updates from staff may find that these are not realistic expectations in most college-based programs.”72

Far from an Ideal Postsecondary Setting Because community colleges educate nearly half of all undergraduate students73 and nearly 60 percent of those students enroll initially in developmental courses, it is implicitly understood that the work of community colleges and THE DISABILITIES DILEMMA 99 developmental education is vitally important to increasing postsecondary completion. America has, as succinctly stated by Robert H. McCabe’s 2000 title of a report to the nation’s stakeholders and community college leaders, No One to Waste.74 Therefore, it is imperative that the developmental courses designed to prepare students for the college-level curriculum are as rigorous and efficient as can be. Hunter Boylan wrote in What Works: Research-Based Practices in Developmental Education that it is important to manage expectations and to make “explicit the purpose and anticipated outcomes of developmental education.”75 He went on to say that “a key to managing expectations . . . is defining ‘successful developmental education.’ ”76 One of the authors served as the chairperson of the developmental education redesign team for her institution’s Achieving the Dream work. Before embarking on a develop- mental education redesign odyssey, the author believed it would be wise to evaluate what consensus existed at the college around the purpose of devel- opmental education. Taking Boylan’s advice into consideration, she was con- cerned there might be competing ideas about the purpose of developmental education, and believed it would be impossible to successfully redesign the experience if those redesigning could not agree on the purpose of develop- mental education to begin with. The author relied on facilitators to conduct focus group sessions with faculty and staff across the district, and to her surprise and delight, every group articulated that the primary reason devel- opmental education coursework was offered at the institution was to prepare students for entry into and success in college-level coursework. Not surprisingly, after acknowledging that primary purpose, each group proceeded to raise the issue that the college needed to more conscientiously address the unique postsecondary educational needs of students with ID and others with extremely low skills who typically place into the lowest developmental courses and struggle to make meaningful academic gains and complete a program of study. The educators surmised that if students were unlikely to ever qualify for and succeed in college-level courses, then provid- ing more appropriate postsecondary alternatives to intensive, college-bound developmental coursework, among other possible responses, should be con- sidered. A prime example of a positive and successful postsecondary experience for students with ID, like Sarah Klein, can be found in Kentucky’s Supported Higher Education Project (SHEP) initiative. Sarah is enrolled at Northern Kentucky University through the SHEP program; her mother, Catherine Klein, explained in a ThinkCollege! webinar that Sarah was not ready to work full-time at 18 and that remaining in the high-school setting after her same-age peers had left due to graduation was not an attractive option. According to Klein, keys to Sarah’s successful postsecondary participation through SHEP are that she registers as a non-degree student, audits only two classes per semester, and “even though she gets a grade, it’s not really recorded as a grade for her. So, that takes a lot of pressure off of her and pro- fessors and mentors.”77 SHEP is funded by a U.S. Department of Education 100 COMMUNITY COLLEGES AND THE ACCESS EFFECT grant issued to the Human Development Institute at the University of Kentucky that promotes and supports the postsecondary education of stu- dents 18–26 years old with ID through enrollment opportunities at four Kentucky universities and one community and technical college.78 Another advantage Klein reported about Sarah’s participation in SHEP is that her enrollment was guided by a person-centered planning framework, which allowed Sarah and her parents to select courses of high interest.79 In addition to having traditional college and university admissions require- ments waived, students participating in programs like SHEP or CPTPs fre- quently have developmental prerequisites waived, as well. But, at community colleges, students with ID not participating in these special programs are typically subjected to the same assessment and placement procedures that apply to all incoming students; so, instead of being allowed to audit high- interest courses with the professor’s knowledge, they are usually directed into arduous developmental courses designed to successfully remediate skill deficiencies. These enrollments are then counted in the institutional student success data that both institutional and faculty effectiveness are judged by and increasingly financially penalized when these students fail to successfully qualify for college-level work and earn postsecondary credentials of labor market value. One of the authors has sat many times through exit counseling sessions at the end of the semester, confident she was the only party of the two who understood the meaning of the final grade being discussed. During one memorable session, a student with an ID earnestly asked if a 14 percent was a good grade. Despite a developmental education student’s perceived low cognition, instructors remain professionally obligated to serve all students equally well, providing the same level of feedback on papers, requesting and scheduling conferences when student performance is sub-par, even when cer- tain the solution is that the some students would thrive much more in a post- secondary setting with different goals and standards for success, as they were enrolled earlier in high school with IEPs, extra professional attention, and curriculum modifications. Obviously, a big difference exists between partici- pation in supported postsecondary transition programs for students with ID and their unsupported enrollment in intensive developmental coursework, the application of FSA for such activity, and inclusion in an institution’s stu- dent success data for FSA-eligible courses. And while the progress of students with ID is not counted in the institu- tional data when they audit courses through CPTPs, the progress of students with ID enrolled in credit-bearing developmental education coursework does impact community college student success data. So, for students with ID living in the 41 states without a single FSA-eligible CPTP (and even for the students living in the other nine states, but who cannot for any number of reasons access one of the 14 FSA-eligible CPTPs), open door community col- leges continue to present an attractive postsecondary education setting, even though students are mismatched in intense developmental courses designed to remediate skills deficiencies and prepare them for college-level coursework. THE DISABILITIES DILEMMA 101

Ethically Serving Students with ID The award of FSA to students with ID and their enrollment in intensive, college-bound developmental courses and college-level courses raises compelling questions about how in a fiscally-tight, completion-focused, accountability-driven higher education environment an open enrollment institution can effectively serve students at virtually every point along the intellectual continuum in the FSA-eligible curriculum. Community col- leges must not lose sight of the primary reason developmental courses were created: to prepare students to succeed in college-level courses. Simultaneously, community colleges must also respect the unique postsecondary education needs of students with ID and treat them as valued community members. Though many problems accompany not having the heart to tell any inter- ested student “no” in the community college realm, one is rooted in the assumption that no alternative postsecondary experiences to unfettered access without appropriate support exist or could be created. While it may be the current reality in some communities that suitable postsecondary alterna- tives do not exist for students with ID, one reason they do not is because for so long students with ID and their advocates have felt fortunate to have been allowed to enroll at the community college at all. Rather than accepting that an appropriate postsecondary transition pro- gram for students who previously self-identified as being unable to succeed in a high school curriculum constitutes enrolling unsupported students in developmental coursework or even college-level courses, improperly qualify- ing them for FSA and forcing oblivious taxpayers to subsidize enrollments that do not engender success, thoughtful transition planning and funding of programs specifically designed to help students reach their potential could occur. Gaumer, Morningstar, and Clark emphasized that successful post- secondary transition efforts for students with disabilities frequently include one or more of the following features: “community-based instruction, work experience, family involvement, interagency collaboration, and postsecond- ary training.”80 Undoubtedly, more considerately attending to the postsecondary needs of students with ID will yield benefits to all community college students, which is at the heart of that institution’s mission: to serve the needs of the community in which it exists. And students with ID deserve to be treated as valued community members. Even after learning of their own institutions’ practice of enrolling and failing students with ID in developmental courses, many community college administrators profess the tandem beliefs that they have no choice because their mission requires them to admit everyone and that a kinder cut is to allow all students to enroll and fail. Many administra- tors agree that postsecondary enrollments destined for failure constitute a very poor transition plan for some students with special needs, but they feel politically and/or legally stymied to respond with a soft landing that appears to close the door. Absent quality postsecondary alternatives, however, stu- dents who did not take a standard high school core curriculum will continue 102 COMMUNITY COLLEGES AND THE ACCESS EFFECT to enroll in the FSA-eligible curriculum at the nation’s open door commu- nity colleges as long as they are allowed, even though many desperately need alternative postsecondary experiences and would welcome them, as would their advocates. The question of including students with ID on community college cam- puses was settled federally with the 2008 HEA reauthorization; the college campus is an idyllic setting for inclusion, even as all programs are not. In the immortal words of St. Louis Community College founding president Joseph Cosand in 1970, “If colleges are to open their doors to all students, they must offer something that will benefit all of them.”81 Therefore, it is imperative that community colleges more comprehensively address the post- secondary education needs of those who are not bound to complete cer- tificates and degrees. Too frequently, meaningful postsecondary options for students with ID are sparsely provided and/or are cost-prohibitive. While the community college boasts many institutional advantages for effectively serving students with ID, more CPTPs can currently be found at prestigious four-year colleges and universities, suggesting that more community colleges should consider developing CPTPs. A response from open door community colleges to postsecondary students with ID is inevitable. The pressing philo- sophical and pragmatic concern is how institutions will respond. Chapter 8

The Access Effect

Jacob, a recent high school graduate, was enrolled in a developmental English course taught by one of the authors while this book was being writ- ten. He sat in the back row and was rarely engaged in class, but knew the rules and played by them. He didn’t text during class, didn’t talk to the stu- dents sitting next to him during lecture periods, and only missed a few class sessions. He was respectful toward his instructor and participated in group activities, but did as little work as possible to get by. His essays were bland and unimaginative, albeit largely free of significant grammatical or mechani- cal errors. He was, simply put, disengaged and unmotivated while obviously capable of much more. After returning the third essay of the semester, an essay that showed little improvement in complexity or voice, the instructor asked the million-dollar question: “Jacob, you’re obviously smart. You pos- sess the ability to learn to write well and succeed, but don’t seem to care to improve your work to the level we expect of a college freshman. Why?” His response was honest and illustrated two major shortcomings in America’s education system. “I just checked out my senior year of high school because I didn’t have to do much, and I knew I was going here to the community college. It didn’t matter what my ACT was. I want to be in college and I know it’s important, but I’m stuck in the same rut that I got into in high school. I can’t get out of it.” Jacob went on to say that his senior year of high school was essentially a waste of time, but that he didn’t mind. He knew he didn’t need to meet any standards to go to his local community college because anyone could enroll. Jacob’s final high school year was much like that of millions of American teens who begin their senior year with state secondary school requirements essentially met and no need for additional courses in the core areas critical to college success, such as English, math, and science. A 2001 report by the Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) confirmed that while graduation requirements vary by state and school district, they “may be set so low that seniors need to enroll in only two or three courses to earn a diploma. The schools themselves are sending a message that the senior year is a time of low academic expectation.”1 104 COMMUNITY COLLEGES AND THE ACCESS EFFECT

In a 2011 report on a meeting of the 21st Century Consortium, a lead- ership group representing seven prominent school districts from across the country, Superintendent Kevin Skelly of the Palo Alto Unified School District and Scott Laurence of the San Mateo Union High School District in California expressed the frustrations of the group that, “Too many students who graduate from high schools return to their communities without having completed a college degree.”2 One of the issues that repeatedly arose in these discussions was the adverse impact community college open enrollment poli- cies have on secondary student achievement. The authors stated:

Community colleges’ open enrollment policies have a negative effect on stu- dent motivation during high school particularly during the senior year. Seniors going to a “JC” (junior college) know their admission is guaranteed, so they often slack off and avoid challenging course work, particularly during their senior year. The bad habits formed in high school are not easily shaken.3

The Common Core State Standards (CCSS), recently adopted by most states and wisely benchmarked to international standards, are an attempt to eradicate the chronically low secondary achievement that contributes to poor postsecondary outcomes by getting all students college- and career- ready through a combination of increasing curriculum standards and mea- suring student progress throughout K-12 for more timely intervention. However, since a poor showing on a CCSS assessment is not anticipated to negatively impact enrollment or FSA eligibility at the open door community college, much of the benefit from the higher standards will be realized by students with preexisting high achievement motivation, those likely already well-prepared for college. For students who know well in advance they will be attending the open admission community college—low-income students and rural students, commonly—the new standards will likely mean precious little because their college enrollment and initial FSA eligibility will still be guaranteed. And, the perpetuation of unnecessarily low K-12 achieve- ment further exemplifies the folly of applying performance funding to open access higher education institutions to improve student success. One of the authors remarked to a veteran high school educator that the new CCSS raise secondary curriculum expectations while failing to induce any greater student commitment. The teacher confirmed that the open door institution in his community lulls both students and parents into complacency by guaranteeing higher education entry and funding to any interested student with no prior performance expectation, which creates a depressing effect on secondary achievement. Feeling professionally crushed by the weight of being held responsible for unmotivated students’ test scores and frustrated in not being able to more effectively reach his students, the high school teacher implored his community college counterpart with more than a touch of exasperation: “Anything you can do on your end to make these parents see that education is important would help us educate their children.”4 THE ACCESS EFFECT 105

He shared that after passing an objective, end-of-course exam was recently added as an eligibility requirement for high school graduates who meet cer- tain citizenship, service, and GPA requirements to take advantage of the two- year scholarship to the community college, the parents he had tried in vain to reach for years to discuss low achievement suddenly began contacting him to check in on the progress of their children. In the absence of an objec- tive performance standard with college funding implications, however, the parents appeared uninterested in their children’s academic achievement and engagement. When a 2.5 GPA was the greatest demand standing in the way of their children’s first two years free at the community college, they remained unconcerned with the teacher’s grave concerns that their children were not achieving in a core course. However, the moment an objective measure of their skills put their community college funding at risk, parents became infi- nitely more interested in learning about their children’s progress. Ever present in policy discussions about how community colleges can assist in making ground up on completion goals are those voices reminding everyone to protect open access at all costs, always with the predictable twin points that open access is a historical cornerstone of the community college mission and that many students would not qualify to attend if any perfor- mance standard was required. Few recognize or are willing to discuss the central role that open door policy plays in tamping down secondary student engagement and achievement, which subsequently leads to poor postsecond- ary performance and a great deal of unfulfilled potential. Far from only or even mostly producing positive effects, open admissions policy negatively affects academic achievement and completion; many capable citizens are, in fact, unquestionably harmed by the utter lack of entry standards at a col- lection of community colleges blanketing the country. Open access policy provides such a cartoonishly large safety valve that it contributes to low post- secondary completion by discouraging many from preparing meaningfully. In 1998, Breneman and Haarlow famously estimated the annual cost of developmental education at $1 billion, a painful sum they and others have spent years trying to take the sting out of by framing as “less than one percent of the annual budgets of public institutions of higher education,”5 for example. More than 15 years later, the only detail anyone remembers from their report, though, is the $1 billion price tag, which is unfortunate because the three commentaries following the headliner focused on financial cost are priceless and infinitely more useful to inform policy thought. Economist Robert M. Costrell challenged Breneman and Haarlow’s conclusion that developmental education activities were a bargain, and in their separate commentaries, both Costrell and Laurence Steinberg took issue with Breneman and Haarlow’s definition of cost as it strictly related to money. Costrell, for example, cited the inestimable, but undeniable, tax on the quality of education offered at the higher education institution forced to lower admissions standards. Importantly, Costrell presaged a major cause of our completion dif- ficulties today when he wrote, “Among the most striking predictions is that low admission standards will depress the college graduation rate among 106 COMMUNITY COLLEGES AND THE ACCESS EFFECT some students who are lulled into a lesser degree of college preparation”6 [emphasis added]. In responding to a piece estimating the financial cost of developmental education, Costrell used his space to draw attention to the negative effect on completion that low college admissions standards have on the academic preparation and commitment of secondary students. Why? Because he had correctly identified low college admissions standards as heavily responsible for much of the costly topic of debate, and an expense hung on America impossible to calculate strictly in dollars and cents. Fifteen years before Breneman and Haarlow, the authors of A Nation at Risk also identified expectations imposed on students by responsible oth- ers as one of four keys to a successful educational process. Three of the five ways academic expectations are communicated to students, according to the National Commission on Excellence in Education, are interrelated and explain much about why American students have exhibited such low rates of adequate college preparation and completion for years. The first critical expectation in a successful educational process is the presence of “high school and college graduation requirements” that either do or do not communicate the importance of rigorous course-taking. The second is “the presence or absence of rigorous examinations requiring students to demonstrate their mastery of content and skill before receiving a diploma or a degree.” And the third is the presence and impact of “college admissions requirements, which reinforce high school standards”7 [emphasis added]. Had two important lessons about successful education, and therefore increasing achievement, been taken to heart by all the educators and policy- makers who read A Nation at Risk 30 years ago, this book would not need to have been written. First lesson: nonnegotiable standards for high school and college credentials must be met before they are awarded, a costly error in the secondary realm already discussed. Second lesson: college admission requirements deeply impact student engagement and academic achievement at the secondary level. Open admissions policy coupled with attractive FSA refunds tacitly com- municates to students who consider the community college even as a back-up plan: “It is entirely unimportant how well you prepare academically before you enroll. You will always have a place in FSA-eligible curriculum, and you are guaranteed money for whatever educational experience needed to meet your level of preparation or skill.” The first half of the message we know to be utterly false; the second half of the message that is only fleetingly true and, therefore, these messages terribly mislead K-12 students in the impor- tant years leading up to college. Hallowed open door policy, which broadened higher education access at critical times in American history, now functions more for many students as a hollow promise. Far from continuing to generate overwhelmingly positive effects, open door policy can now claim the dubious honor of contributing to America’s state of educational disengagement by creating an environment where young Americans unfortunately feel quite emboldened not preparing for postsecondary education. THE ACCESS EFFECT 107

Lessons for the United States Thirty-four countries currently belong to the OECD, an international, Paris- based endeavor that exists to enhance international communication and col- laboration between governments for the purpose of improving the human condition that has administered the Programme for International Student Assessment, or PISA, since 1997. Countries can elect to participate or not in PISA, a reading, math, and science examination of a country’s 15-year- olds that has been administered every three years since 2000, and more than 70 countries have participated to date. As the world has become increasingly interconnected, policymakers have hungered for objective data on their stu- dents’ academic achievement relative to that of students in other countries, to the end of at least maintaining and ideally increasing their country’s over- all standard of living. As the OECD wrote in a 2011 report, subtitled Lessons from PISA for the United States, covering some of the best educational reform countries world- wide, “The yardstick for educational success is no longer simply improve- ment by national standards, but the best performing education systems internationally.”8 Never has this been truer for America than it is today. Owing to a number of factors unique to the United States, including com- paratively higher wages historically commanded in this nation relative to others and the hollowing out of traditional American labor markets due to automation and outsourcing, America’s twenty-first-century labor growth is strikingly bimodal. To grossly generalize, lower-skilled service industry jobs and those requiring the highest-educated, most innovative, and most intel- lectually capable workers remain. As such, the OECD instructed, “High- wage countries will find that they can only maintain their . . . wage levels if they can develop a high proportion of . . . knowledge workers and keep them in their work force. Increasingly, such work will require very high skill levels and . . . increasing levels of creativity and innovation.”9 The rich OECD report was the product of collaboration with America’s DC-based National Center on Education and the Economy, which was negotiated by Secretary of Education Arne Duncan after a 2010 meeting with OECD secretary-general Angel Gurrìa. Both felt the results of a PISA- flavored comparison between the state of education in the United States and that of the highest-performing countries would benefit not only the United States, but also other countries seeking to improve by observing the interna- tional models for successful reform. The 2011 analysis and recommendations provide many useful lessons that hold great potential in positively influenc- ing American education reform; the report is worth reading cover to cover by anyone with a desire to improve American productivity and global com- petitiveness through increased educational achievement. One of the report’s more instructional points for American education reformers, however, mer- its more attention in the context of this book than any other. Unique to the public education systems in the highest-achieving coun- tries in the world—and conspicuously missing from the US public education 108 COMMUNITY COLLEGES AND THE ACCESS EFFECT system—are minimum performance requirements that high school students must meet to qualify for their next educational opportunity. It is important to note that while in such systems performance requirements can be strict, attempts to establish competency can be and frequently are theoretically unending. The OECD report, for example, cited many northern European countries with “qualification systems . . . established so that it is never too late to earn a given qualification. In such systems, it cannot be said that one has failed the exams, but only that one has not yet succeeded on them.”10 A meaningful tuning effect in the most academically successful countries in the world on secondary student commitment, then, is that “examinations are always available and the standards are never lowered or waived. Students know that they have to take tough courses and study hard in order to get the qualification and so they do”11 [emphasis added]. The OECD report very deliberately assessed the US public education sys- tem as unforgivably remiss in its inability to incentivize and engage students because of its nationwide network of open-door higher education institu- tions. The OECD wrote, for example, “In the United States, high school students may be led to believe that the outcome is the same whether they take easy courses and get Ds in them or take tough courses and get As. Either way, they might think, they can get into the local community college and get on with their lives.”12 The community college is an American invention. Canada boasts an expansive community college system, but no other country—including Canada—has created a national network of higher education institutions that requires so little for students to enroll and so easily access public fund- ing, additionally. Canada is one of the OECD’s model high-achievement countries, though the report presents Ontario as a focused case study, the largest of Canada’s ten provinces. Canada lends a particularly useful model of education reform for America to study because of its success in accomplish- ing equitable achievement amid an incredibly diverse population. Despite public education being governed in a decentralized manner by the province, with virtually no federal influence, Canada shines as a star in postsecond- ary credential attainment and superior performance on PISA exams, labels reserved for public education systems boasting “high participation, high quality, high equity and high efficiency.”13 Approximately 60 percent of Canadians aged 25–64 have earned some postsecondary credential, one of the highest rates in the world.14 The OECD noted that Ontario’s reform efforts have been marked by “extensive capacity building and a climate of relative trust and mutual respect,”15 as well as “maintaining labour peace and morale throughout the system,”16 not description reserved for the top- down, increasingly divisive education reform activities currently occurring in America. The OECD report also identified laudable Canadian values around lit- eracy and education in general—hallmarks of Canadian culture, with a 2007 study finding Canadian students “more likely than any other children in THE ACCESS EFFECT 109 the world to read daily for pleasure”17—as a primary cause of Canada enjoy- ing an enduringly high ranking in academic achievement compared to the rest of the world. Canada’s successful education reform efforts could best be described as building upon solid achievement and moving up among the top international achievers. By earning the top spot on the inaugural PISA assessment in 2000, Canada announced its presence as an international model of academic achievement to the world with authority. Contributing to Canada’s high cultural values in regard to education, strict standards exist that must be met for students to earn high school diplomas. The province of Ontario, for example, employs as part of its standardized assessment system (administered at grades 3, 6, and 9) a tenth-grade literacy test that student must pass as a high school graduation requirement.18 Admittance to many of the Canadian two-year programs also commonly offered at American community colleges strictly require enrollees to pos- sess a high school diploma or equivalent, in addition to requiring minimum scores on standardized twelfth-grade math and English examinations, quite dissimilar to America’s open admission model that regularly enrolls seriously unprepared students in the name of opportunity. As the officemate of the one of authors, who attended public schools in Canada, shared about her high school experience in the 1980s—before Canada’s significant education reforms were enacted, “Standards were high. If you didn’t pass final exams, it was possible you would not pass the year—we took it seriously.”19 The OECD report suggests strongly that an admissions standard to the FSA-eligible curriculum at the nation’s community colleges would do much to reasonably promote greater performance by way of engagement from American students, a variable that is grossly under-manipulated compared to how the highest-performing countries operate. Very simply put, in such countries where objective performance standards exist in the nation’s net- work of schools—be they implemented as an exit from one experience or admittance to the next, “Students know what they have to do to realise their dream and they put in the work that is needed to do it.”20 The OECD report sings with notes of incredulity that the United States has not yet concluded the following: Where no admissions requirement to over 1,100 open access higher education institutions exist, little motivates the country’s students to invest their all (or even their small) in academic achievement. This would, again, be especially true for low-income and rural students who know earlier with greater certainty than many others that they are destined for a community college. Because the implementation of mini- mum performance standards is such an addressable issue, it is unfortunate that the OECD report had to point out that “One of the most striking features of the American education system, in contrast with the education systems of the most successful countries, is its failure to provide strong incen- tives to the average student to work hard in school.”21 And, the OECD is not a lone voice in the wilderness on this matter. The New Commission on the Skills of The American Workforce came to 110 COMMUNITY COLLEGES AND THE ACCESS EFFECT the exact same conclusion and policy recommendation four years earlier in 2007’s Tough Choices or Tough Times:

(T)he United States, almost unique among the advanced industrial nations, has managed to construct a system that could not be better designed to deprive the vast majority of our students of a reason to take tough courses or to study hard.22

The commission’s first suggestion? Get K-12 educators and students to “do the job right the first time,”23 which they also concluded would happen if the nation adopted “a performance-based system”24 that would determine— exactly as the OECD noted—which direction and whether a student would move forward in his or her education. Specifically, the commission recom- mended setting up a number of objective exams to be taken by most students at the end of their sophomore year with standards set no lower than 100-level course qualification. Just like the OECD reasoned four years later, the com- mission concluded that the equivalent of qualifying exams for community college admissions would shore up “the colossal inefficiency of the American education system.”25 Like the OECD, the commission also observed the striking contrast between the American system and those in the most suc- cessful countries in that American students pass time in the K-12 system “and avoided taking tough courses and studying hard, while most students in these other countries rose to meet the expectations set by the examina- tions, because they understood that was the only way they could achieve their aims”26 [emphasis added]. And like the OECD four years later, the commission emphasized the importance of maintaining continuous educational opportunity while also maintaining objective performance standards for advancement. Similar to the highest-achieving countries, in the commission’s plan, students who did not pass the exams could “keep challenging them all their lives, if necessary. No one would fail. If they did not succeed, they would just try again.”27 The commission goes to great lengths to emphasize that bold reform is neces- sary because we have already in place an education system that routinely graduates unprepared and unproductive students. The commission painted a futuristic scenario describing what would happen if their recommenda- tions were adopted, and it is exactly the cultural change the increased CCSS intends to, but will not, accomplish as long as 1100+ community colleges keep the doors open to the FSA-eligible curriculum:

Students all over the country now realize that they can no longer get into college—any college—by just coasting through secondary school. So they are working much hard than students did before. . . . This, of course, makes it much easier for teachers, who find their students more motivated to learn.28

Responding to a question about identifying the point at which college costs outweigh the benefits of attending posed to a panel of higher education THE ACCESS EFFECT 111 experts and economists, panelist W. Norton Grubb, like Costrell, shunned talk of dollars and cents and instead focused on the connection between college access and equity. Grubb emphasized the “moral obligation”29 of responsible parties to ensure college- and career-readiness in our nation’s children. Notably, he did not make the point that college access should be maintained to accomplish the illusion of opportunity. Instead, making the argument for enhanced equity, Grubb emphasized exactly the opposite— that college enrollment should come as a consequence of being prepared and should not function as it currently does, an assumed national rite of passage that naturally follows four years in high school: “Rather than pro- claiming College for All, we should be stressing High School Completion for All, emphasizing that such completion requires either college readiness or readiness for sustained employment.”30 Inequity, Grubb argued, can only effectively be reduced through genuine preparation for college, the opposite approach of assuring initial enrollment and funding every student without regard for readiness. In a critical response to the panel Grubb took part in, Christopher L. Washington argued in a letter to the editor of The Chronicle of Higher Education that the benefits of access far outweigh the costs, and that “Hard- working pupils should not be discouraged from attempting to earn a col- lege degree”31 because “. . . it’s hard enough to spark an interest in education for today’s students without laying down predetermined limitations.”32 Washington’s first point garners unqualified support; continuing education and lifelong learning should ideally be a part of every American’s life. As for his accurate observation that far too many intellectually capable contempo- rary American students show even the shallowest interest in receiving an education, it cannot be denied that the explicit promise to every American youth that he or she can enroll in college and receive thousands of dollars in cash at a nationwide network of community colleges without having to demon- strate any academic ability ironically enhances the very malaise Washington complained about and claimed expanded access would solve. When one of the authors voiced concern to a family friend and recently retired high school principal that the open admissions policy at her commu- nity college was depressing student success at the local feeder high schools, he agreed, saying that in his experience, “(Students) don’t see the junior col- lege as something you necessarily get ready for.”33 He later added that open admissions policy sends a dangerous message to the least-prepared “that you can go to school forever.”34 Community college students do not realize until they fail and their enrollment-sustaining FSA is yanked that continuous enrollment is far from the truth, but by then it’s too late. Attending K-12 schooling with a community college pillow in their community, the retired principal continued, causes many capable high school students to relax and develop poor academic habits, because admission to college and initial FSA eligibility is of no concern. Community college faculty, too, confirm the reality that far too many intellectually capable high school graduates correctly place into developmental 112 COMMUNITY COLLEGES AND THE ACCESS EFFECT courses because they failed for years to regularly exercise their gray matter and, as a result, arrive at the community college quite intellectually unfit. Many students have such a long history of undisciplined academic behavior that they truly find themselves unable to summon the will to apply them- selves to their community college studies when they need and, like Jacob, even desire to. They possess undeveloped critical thinking skills and lack the requisite grit to flourish when faced with the least-demanding academic challenges—benefits accrued by students who have happily solved problems, engaged in robust projects, and jousted with intellectually challenging mate- rial over a lifetime. While seriously unprepared students do still need to develop the basic skills needed to survive in college courses, it is far from all they need. Yesterday’s academically disengaged K-12 students are today’s community college developmental education students who become tomorrow’s postsec- ondary non-completers when they are not fortified with critically important basic skills and general knowledge. Many recent high school graduates are also missing the set of executive functioning skills successful academics rely on to simultaneously manage and complete multiple, demanding academic tasks with deadlines. Despite informing students at the beginning of the semester that the precise reason they are given all assignments up front with staggered due dates is to provide them the opportunity to develop, under guidance, the skills needed to independently manage their work, the most common request one of the authors receives via end-of-course feedback is that she take it easy on future students and only assign one major project at a time. Many students express disappointment when the author refuses to heavily guide them as a class through one assignment at a time, and report that their daily schedules were micro-managed by their teachers during high school. High school teachers complain that pressure to meet AYP has both narrowed the curriculum and left no time to develop student success skills, like time/project management. Additionally, teachers report that in their inclusive classrooms, the spread of student abilities makes it virtually impos- sible to attempt to develop such skills in students. Since some students need very high support, it is impossible not to just provide the same level of assis- tance for all students at the same time. Many students enrolled in developmental education courses arrive so lacking in perseverance that when they struggle to function in a demanding college environment, their performances mimic those of students with low cognitive ability. This creates great drag on efficiency as instructors expend great energy trying to diagnose why two intellectually different students are performing at similarly low levels so that they can determine how to best instructionally respond. Students with the lowest skills cannot develop these complex and interrelated abilities in one semester, in an accelerated develop- mental course, or in the context of a student success experience, which is one reason completion rates remain unacceptably low. It is also why accelerating many unprepared students into college-level courses in a PF 2.0 environ will inevitably cause a reduction in standards. THE ACCESS EFFECT 113

The strain on standards created by scores of unskilled, undisciplined, and/or unmotivated learners enrolling in college-level courses is also well- documented and painfully obvious. An assessment committee at one of the authors’ colleges engaged in a project a few years ago to discover which reading skills former developmental reading students transferred most fre- quently to a college-level course they subsequently passed. The committee also surveyed the faculty members who taught those high-enrollment gen- eral education courses to learn from their perspective what reading skills are needed for students to effectively read in their content area and what reading difficulties most commonly occurred. The most common answers given by faculty regarding the sources of their students’ reading problems were low vocabulary development, low comprehension, limited knowledge of topics and failure to even read the assigned material. In all but one of the courses surveyed, the percentage of students admitting to completing less than half of the required course readings exceeded 50 percent, and in the most academically rigorous course surveyed, the percentage of students completing less than half of the required course readings was 90 percent. Of all the strategies reading faculty taught students to use, overwhelmingly, the strategy students reported using most in the college-level course they passed was taking notes from the textbook. The committee sadly concluded that reading the text apparently was not critically important to passing the classes. The committee also concluded that it was possible instructors were conveying content to students in ways that it negated students’ need to read the text. In discussion, one of the author’s colleagues described the mollycoddling effect of faculty overtures, like making available detailed PowerPoint presentations that covered the key concepts in all the chapters, for example, as “chewing their food for them.”35 Finally, the committee suggested strongly that well-intentioned faculty members may have adapted course requirements or reduced rigor over time to accommodate students’ inability/unwillingness to read their textbooks, since the students surveyed had all passed the course but in the majority of cases had not completed course readings. It is notable that the committee recommended embedding reading instruction in the content courses, not only to improve students’ develop- ment and application of reading strategies, but also to allow content faculty to restore rigor to their courses with confidence that students could make use of their texts with the integrated instruction. One of the authors who performed work for a time as a literacy consultant at the institution coin- cidentally corroborated the findings with her assessment data, too. Many students surveyed wrote about their reading behaviors in response to open- ended questions that they felt no need to read their textbooks or take their own notes due to the availability of extensive PowerPoints, copious lecture notes, and other content supplements, like study guides, provided by the faculty through the class web-supported learning management system. The more rigorous National Center on Education and the Economy (NCEE) study in 2013 involving seven geographically dispersed community 114 COMMUNITY COLLEGES AND THE ACCESS EFFECT colleges confirmed these illuminating findings. Seeking the truth about community college student reading behaviors and actual reading require- ments, the NCEE went about getting answers in very much the same way: by evaluating texts, curriculum, and instructor demands at the commu- nity colleges. In the open door community colleges, NCEE found what both the assessment committee and the author in her literacy consultant work did: “Students are not expected to make much use of those texts . . . . (T)he performance levels students are expected to meet with respect to read- ing are . . . surprisingly modest.”36 NCEE kindly labeled community college professors’ use of extensive PowerPoint presentations and other study guides “workarounds”—as in, they were accommodating their students’ low read- ing abilities to increase student success as measured by course pass rates. In a footnote offering one explanation for the workarounds, the NCEE report observed, “There has been an element of ‘pedagogical surrender’ on (com- munity) college campuses. Where once . . . they taught to ‘the middle,’ now they teach to ‘the base’ ”37—pedagogical surrender at our nation’s com- munity colleges under the crushing weight of unprepared students in our nation’s greatest hour of need for high standards. In a heroic effort to improve students success rates in an environment where students present with lower and lower skills and abilities, many well- intentioned community college faculty compensate by over-supporting stu- dents and advancing debilitating dependency, limiting the growth of capable students who need to be challenged and are not receiving the challenge they—at least theoretically—enrolled and paid for. Higher education has often been described, after all, as the one transaction where customers hope not to receive all they pay for. Nevertheless, students who were denied the commitment-inducing benefit of a community college admission standard in high school are cheated again by low expectations when they enroll at the community college. When new faculty receive these underdeveloped students the next semester, the cycle is often perpetuated, except where faculty have not yet compromised standards, in which case rates of high failure result. Research suggests and experience confirms that two phenomena occur when large numbers of students are allowed into courses without possessing the requisite skills: (1) unprepared students fail at high rates, and (2) faculty, worn down by the lowered skills sets pervasive in their classrooms, compro- mise their academic standards and teach to the middle so that a reasonable number of students pass.38 In her doctoral dissertation, Jill Jacobs-Biden affirmed the same: “Although there is strength in diversity as a classroom component, the lack of homogeneity in academic ability makes it difficult to teach to a single standard.”39 Increasingly, community college students unprepared for the rigors of college-level work—both academically and by disposition—are described by college personnel as apathetic. Paul Fain alluded to the access effect in relaying the NCEE’s study findings: “Community colleges set a low bar for students . . . and many students fail to meet even those minimal expec- tations.”40 NCEE president Marc S. Tucker also blamed low secondary THE ACCESS EFFECT 115 achievement for exerting pressure on community college standards, saying, “It’s pretty obvious looking at the data we have that the expectations in the community colleges are so abysmally low because the kids coming into these colleges can’t do much more than what they ask of them.”41 The NCEE study authors’ keen observation that “community college could be a much more rewarding experience for students were it not for the weak prepara- tion that precedes college and the modest expectations (of the community college)”42 suggests this reality: weak preparation plus low expectations at the community college result in a less-than-rewarding academic experience. Many experienced public educators, however, will confirm a more complex relationship among variables: guaranteed postsecondary access and funding causes weak preparation, which over time has caused the adoption of lower expectations at the community college, which has, in turn, resulted in a less- than-rewarding academic experience. The latter reality will only strengthen if performance funding is allowed to masquerade as an acceptable student success strategy and critical higher education funding is exchanged for ever- ascending completion rates. Arum and Roksa blamed both institutional pandering to students as con- sumers and student apathy for the widespread lowering of curriculum stan- dards. However, especially at open door community colleges, the strategy of enrolling more and more students with reading, writing, computing, and/ or thinking skills far below even those required to succeed in what should be rigorous college-bound developmental or college-level coursework is unde- niably a factor, as well. Performance standards are subtly reduced. Tests or assignments are altered only slightly in appearance but substantially in rigor to keep pass rates respectable. Supports are provided not to really challenge students and help them meet increased rigor, but rather to reach down and forgive inadequacies, shepherding them safely over an elaborate, faculty- constructed bridge to create the illusion of mastery and independence on transcripts and in student success data. Content faculty—especially those without strong backgrounds in learning theory and/or curriculum and instruction—have admitted not realizing until it is pointed out to them that their laudable intentions are more likely limiting student growth as opposed to encouraging it. And it is in this already-strained community college envi- ronment that greater pressure still is heaped on colleges by politicians and policy organizations to rapidly and drastically improve college completion rates while accelerating the college course enrollment of high numbers of seriously unprepared students. Is there any question that American higher education quality is in danger? All of this explains the extraordinarily frequent employer complaint that today’s college graduates aren’t exactly what they used to be. Mark Bauerlein, English professor and author of 2007’s The Dumbest Generation, recently wrote an article to draw attention to the staggering lack of professionalism exhibited by US college graduates and the entitlement complex increasingly cited by employers about recent young hires. The most common employer complaints predictably center on attitudinal deficits of recent graduates: poor 116 COMMUNITY COLLEGES AND THE ACCESS EFFECT work ethic, lackadaisical attitude about performance, a general inability to work hard due to never regularly having done so prior to graduating from college. Regardless of the source of the degradation, Bauerlein pointed out, “The burden falls heaviest on the workplace. . . . A bad worker . . . jeopardizes a whole unit’s productivity. . . . Dereliction in the workplace puts profits at risk.”43 Similarly, unskilled and uneducated American citizens negatively affect the health of the whole societal unit, for in twenty-first-century America many find that despite being cognitively and physically capable, what they have to offer is not valued in the modern employment market. Unable to find a buyer for their skills, they are forced to rely on resources provided by the better educated, more skilled, and more employable. Not requiring any admission standard to the FSA-eligible curriculum in this era of college-going sets otherwise intellectually capable Americans— particularly those destined for the community college—up for failure, a steep price paid by the individual over a lifetime and one that certainly exacts a toll on society many times over. In the past 30 years, for example, the number of Americans collecting disability benefits has exploded, with more than 14 million currently collecting a monthly check. Accounting for some of the increase are claims not entirely or (in some cases, it appears) even slightly related to disability, but rather directly related to a flood of under- and unemployed poorly educated workers who find they are unequipped to survive in the new knowledge economy. For patients with physical ailments that would not alone ordinarily qualify them for disability benefits, one phy- sician explained that he always factors his patients’ level of education into disability eligibility determinations; he qualifies patients with lower levels of education for disability benefits at higher rates because they are not capable of performing in the only jobs their education would qualify them for, those more physically demanding.44 Another form of education-related disability claim is the hiding of unem- ployed healthy workers on the disability benefits program who struggle to regain employment, even in the absence of an ailment. By no means do disability benefits underwrite an enviable lifestyle, but as Chana Joffe-Walt pointed out in a piece for NPR, when a minimum-wage job nets a full-time worker about $15,000 (and usually without medical benefits), while disability benefits include Medicare and $13,000, disability becomes a viable survival option for many uneducated, under-skilled, unemployed Americans.45 The national debt now stands at almost $17 trillion, a figure that has grown more than $12 trillion since 2000 and is expected to exceed $22 trillion by 2017.46 Increased economic participation is imperative, and postsecondary education plays an enormous role in getting more citizens prepared to participate.

The Power of a Standard The parents of one of the authors sat her and her older brother down in middle school and informed them that as the two oldest children of four, they would need to be particularly shrewd in financing their undergraduate THE ACCESS EFFECT 117 degrees so that enough family resources would remain for the two young- est siblings to attend college, as well. Both the author and her brother were intellectually capable but had not been up to that point particularly inspired students. They did enough to avoid drawing negative attention, but nothing their parents or teachers said convinced them to commit more than about half effort. The author was confident she could fund a good part of her col- lege education with a softball scholarship, but had no way to predict which institutions would recruit her. Newly mindful that her undisciplined, self- ish actions not deny her younger brothers’ higher education opportunity, she started to warm up as a thinker in middle school. Upon entering high school, she flipped an engagement switch and proceeded to prepare academi- cally in the general curriculum those next four years as if heading to Harvard University . . . just in case an institution of that repute offered the best athletic scholarship. When required to choose a book from the high school library her senior year for a report in English class, she selected it based on heft alone: Alexandr Solzhenitsyn’s The Red Wheel. It was enormous. She read it cover to cover, and estimates she understood about 70 percent of it. But, she learned a lot of new words, to say nothing of World-War-I Soviet Russia. The author sparked some interest from four-year softball programs, but in the end no offer appealed more than the full ride to the community college with the nationally ranked team not ten minutes from her home, which also bought her two more treasured years with her family. Right before gradua- tion, she asked her high school English teacher for a book list to choose texts from over the summer that he believed would help her get more prepared for college. Likewise, to get ready for college ball, she sought out the best competition by playing that summer on a women’s team stocked with the most talented college and post-collegiate players in the area. Every Friday night that summer after work, she hitched a ride to weekend tournaments in a light pickup truck with her 25-year-old and 27-year-old teammates who lived on the same end of the city. As a recent high school graduate and the youngest player on the team, she found she didn’t always fit in socially with her teammates who were all over 21. Rather than awkwardly cram three adults into a small cab for long conversations on topics she couldn’t relate well to as an unworldly teenager, the author gave her older teammates the physical and conversational space they needed and chose instead to pad the truck bed with a soft sleeping bag and a pillow. She then wedged herself between the equipment bags, signaled to her shortstop to put the truck in gear, and proceeded to entertain her brain for miles reading Hemingway and Twain, Steinbeck and Thoreau as the light truck skimmed over seemingly every interstate and two-lane highway in the Midwest. To shelter from light rain or chill, she would tuck inside her sleeping bag and resorted to using a flashlight when the sun set with still more miles to cover. With her highly coveted college education being underwritten by her ath- letic ability—but also dependent upon her ability to qualify for and thrive in whatever academic environment accompanied the best scholarship—the unknown rigor waiting at the next school she would attend induced great 118 COMMUNITY COLLEGES AND THE ACCESS EFFECT scholarly commitment from the author who planned to attend the most aca- demically challenging university she could. In the process of studying during high school to ensure her college athletic scholarship, the author grew to appreciate her educational opportunities much more and also began to grasp the importance of how a high-quality education would best position her— in whatever profession she eventually decided to enter—to achieve what she knew to be her primary purpose in life: assisting others. Struggling with the minor disappointment of not getting to attend classes and play softball at a respected university all four years, the author’s father suggested she make the most of her community college experience with the following advice: “Keep the standards you have for yourself higher than those anyone else maintains for you. And, don’t ever get outworked. If you do those two things, you’ll be just fine.” So, during her two years at the com- munity college, the author worked tirelessly—academically and athletically— to prepare for the next round of recruitment and opportunity to transfer. As fate would have it, Harvard did call. While she was academically qualified to attend, the author decided instead to accept a decidedly better financial offer from another academically prestigious Midwestern university, which was also much closer to her family. In short, specifically because her admis- sion to and success in institutions that would fund her education was not guaranteed, the author was forced to engage and calibrate her preparation to a level that would allow her to succeed in institutions with the very highest academic standards. Without question, the externally-imposed achievement standards were the best thing that could have ever happened to her.

Perpetuating Inequity The insidious effect of zero admissions standards is disproportionately shoul- dered by those most likely to know years in advance that they will be attend- ing their local community college: low-income and rural students. Our most fragile citizens are far from aided by the absence of an admission standard at community colleges, as commonly advertised; rather, they are frequently injured in both discernible and less appreciable ways throughout their forma- tive year by the institutions of higher education that represent their only real- istic option for postsecondary enrollment. High school students for whom community college attendance is a foregone conclusion are particularly sus- ceptible to academic relaxation in the years leading up to graduation. Daphna Oyserman’s work assists in explaining how open admissions at the community college depresses K-12 student engagement: “(A) school- focused future identity should influence current behavior if one believes that current action is needed to move toward the future identity, but not otherwise”47 [emphasis added]. In other words, absent any admissions standard, many community college-destined students perceive no need to do anything more than exist prior to enrollment. If students knew they had to meet a minimum performance standard to enroll in the FSA-eligible curriculum, it stands to reason that many inclined not to apply themselves would engage not only in THE ACCESS EFFECT 119 the years immediately preceding college, but much earlier, which is a critical key to improving postsecondary completion in America. Open admissions policy now serves to impact our nation’s most f inancially vulnerable by perpetuating societal inequity instead of eradicating it, the opposite of what the open door community college originally accomplished. Bragg and Durham poignantly underscored in their publication on commu- nity college access and equity in the eye of the accountability storm, “Policy and program efforts that dissociate access from outcomes, failing to recog- nize that equity necessitates linking access and outcomes, have the potential to lead to even less equality among diverse students in higher education”48 [emphasis added]. Just as Grubb warned, providing access alone to higher education without ensuring those admitted have a reasonable opportunity to succeed exacerbates inequity by negatively and disproportionately impacting our community members most in need of developing marketable skills and abilities, the surest assets that could help them achieve social mobility. Richard H. Sander and Stuart Taylor Jr. explain the thought environment and policies that lead to academic over-enrollment in their 2012 book and how, ultimately, affirmative action practices in college admissions counterin- tuitively hurt those they intend to help. The authors argued that “the prob- lem of (college) persistence . . . has become a racial problem largely because of the pervasive use of very large racial preferences (in admissions).”49 In short, Sander and Taylor Jr. posited that the comparatively small number of academically outstanding minority students—many of whom hail from established, wealthy, educated lineage—are fawned over by the most elite colleges and universities and fully funded (because any less offer would tip enrollment at another institution offering a full scholarship). Sander and Taylor Jr. showed that financial aid systematically advantages affluent black and Hispanic students—those who least need the financial support—at the expense of less financially capable, but more academically qualified, working class white and Asian students to achieve the institutional goal of greater racial diversity in the student body. This phenomenon was essentially cor- roborated by the 2013 Hoxby and Avery paper, “The Missing ‘One-Offs’: The Hidden Supply of High-Achieving, Low Income Students,”50 which confirmed that economic diversity, while a stated recruiting goal of America’s most elite universities, has not improved meaningfully over time. How do racial preference admissions practices at elite colleges expand America’s achievement gap between low-income and/or minority students and their more affluent white peers? In short, Sander and Taylor Jr. argue that the bidding wars over the most qualified minority students to achieve student body race quotas at the elite schools create a cascade effect that results in every postsecondary institution below the top tier extending enrollment to more ethnic minorities than are technically qualified by that institution’s admissions standards. The effect of minority students enrolling at institutions beyond their academic preparation is observed in the lower persistence and completion rates by blacks and Hispanics at every post- secondary level; unfortunately, instead of experiencing greater success in 120 COMMUNITY COLLEGES AND THE ACCESS EFFECT college by enrolling at institutions better matched to their preparation lev- els, Sander and Taylor Jr. suggested that blacks and Hispanics consistently overreach, academically—in large part due to aggressive recruitment and tempting financial aid packages by institutions—and ultimately experience unnecessarily low rates of success at every postsecondary tier. An amicus brief filed in the recent FISHER v. UNIVERSITY of TEXAS at AUSTIN case by three U.S. Commission on Civil Rights members added more empirical weight to “overwhelming evidence that (race-based admissions policies) actually harm the students they’re intended to help,”51 making the exact same argument as Sander and Taylor Jr. about the link between overenrolling in academic settings beyond ability and failure. Among other interconnected policy recommendations, Sander and Taylor Jr. suggested truth in advertising be required of colleges and uni- versities to “empower minority students to make their own assessments of the mismatch risks . . . based on preference of known size.”52 In other words, they argued that recruited minority students have the right to know to what statistical degree they have been over-courted by an institution on the basis of race alone. Warned the authors, “Administrators’ assurances that every admitted student is equipped to flourish are not true; they only mislead the students and their parents, often to the students’ detriment.”53 Kahlenberg and Potter also argue in their 2012 publication, “A Better Affirmative Action,”54 that race-neutral socioeconomic (or class-based) admis- sions policies would more justly and positively impact low-income high achiev- ers than race-based policies, and they point to FISHER v. UNIVERSITY of TEXAS at AUSTIN, as well, which during the time of this writing was before the Supreme Court of the United States. In June, 2013, The Supreme Court in FISHER v. UNIVERSITY of TEXAS at AUSTIN remanded the case to a lower court and put higher education institutions on notice when it found the university’s race-based admissions process had not been required by a lower court to endure a “strict scrutiny” test under the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, a legal feature that guarantees race-based deci- sions are reviewable and must be considered unassailably necessary to achieve an institution’s purpose.55 Rewarding Strivers, published in 2010 and edited by Kahlenberg, traces modern-day social immobility to the limitations that economic inequality places on higher education choice and experience. Carnevale and Strohl argue in their Rewarding Strivers chapter, as well, that class-based affirmative action would do far more to close persistent achieve- ment gaps between minority and low-income students and their wealthier and whiter peers. They argue for a more meritocratic distribution of college access that increases the socioeconomic diversity of students attending the most selective higher education institutions. Carnevale and Stroh rightly warned that America is steadily “. . . building a postsecondary system polarized by race, ethnicity, and class and a mismatch between resources and need.”56 The case is made that ability to pay for higher education accounts much for the concentration of low-income students at community colleges and high con- centration of wealthy students in expensive, private institutions. THE ACCESS EFFECT 121

Overenrolled at the Community College Seriously low-skilled, low-income community college Pell recipients are at no less risk of significant injury at community colleges than their coun- terparts over-enrolled at Ivy League institutions and arguably are more at risk because the community college student’s funding is more likely to be strings-attached FSA. How does this happen? Under the long-standing open admissions model, Pell recipients can often bank a couple thousand dollars after paying for classes and books. But, Pell is earned through attendance; it is not the financial gift many students erroneously believe it to be when they accept the money. In an attempt to reserve dwindling funds to deserv- ing students, tightened FSA rules requiring satisfactory academic progress have made eligibility continuation very difficult for seriously unprepared students. The combination of easy community college enrollment and FSA award to unqualified students now unintentionally functions for unprepared low-income students less as a genuine educational opportunity and more as a trap with devastating consequences for those who cannot buy their way out of costly enrollment mistakes they never realized they were making. To be eligible for Pell, students must be enrolled in a legitimate program of study, but academically unprepared students become quickly overwhelmed when multiple courses begin simultaneously and other mediating factors in their lives not properly considered or able to be anticipated prior to enroll- ment interfere. But, by this time it’s too late. They are snagged on the barbs of financial aid, classes have begun, and things are not going well. Many stop attending short of the required 60 percent mark in the semester without fully understanding that they will have to return at least some portion of their Pell money. Most low-income students spend their financial aid refunds immediately on old debt, and when they withdraw or quit attending prior to the 60 percent mark, they must return some of the money that was given to them for the sole purpose of paying for school. Unfortunately, they often do not become aware of the debt until they try to register for another semester of classes, long after the money is gone. Commonly, low-income students lack family members with ready cash assets to bail them out after a bad first semester, and the students cannot earn money fast enough at the low-wage jobs they can secure with a high school diploma sufficient to counter their school debt and re-enroll. As a result, they quickly find themselves at per- manent odds with the one higher education institution in the community that they could have ever afforded to attend, their connection to postsecond- ary education quickly, brutally, and permanently severed for their ill-advised enrollment to begin with. For this reason alone, a moral case can be made for a modest admissions standard to the FSA-eligible curriculum in the new century. Enroll the stu- dents who have a reasonable chance at success and increase their FSA; just as important, protect those who are not ready to succeed from the devastat- ing effects of accessing the funds without adequate preparation. The shot- gun approach of indiscriminately spreading FSA wealth to everyone who 122 COMMUNITY COLLEGES AND THE ACCESS EFFECT knocks on the community college door—with little regard for preparation and promise and, ironically, in the name of opportunity—sadly results in less opportunity, overall. This supposedly fair distribution of public resources exacts particular inequity on extremely low-income, but prepared and moti- vated, students whose family history reveals a legacy of intergenerational poverty, something increased and meritocratic FSA award could work more effectively to sever.

The Power of Preparing for a Future Research presented at the 2012 Assets and Education Research Symposium, a collaborative effort between The University of Kansas’ School of Social Welfare and Washington University in St. Louis’ Center for Social Development, demonstrates the power that even an insubstantial finan- cial savings can play in advancing the educational outcomes of low-income youth. Apparently, much more important than the size of savings are the powerful psychological effects that accrue for low-income youth in particular who participate in saving for their future college educations. The long-term influence on important college-going behaviors and academic engagement, which in turn positively affects educational outcomes, is greatest in low- income youth. In other words, the very act of maintaining a college fund importantly influences pre-collegiate academic engagement by continuously reminding youth in the years leading up to high school graduation that they are preparing for future college enrollment and prompting them to engage in college-going academic behaviors. Elliott et al. summarized Oyserman’s work, which illustrated that the act of maintaining an educational savings account can, among other things, “contribute to positive educational outcomes by (1) making the future feel more proximate, requiring immediate action to ensure success, (2) affirming the importance of education, (and) (3) providing motivation for overcom- ing challenges.”57 One of the authors and her husband opened up savings accounts for each of their children upon birth and for the past ten years have deposited every gifted dollar from distant friends and relatives in those accounts, always reminding the children (who learned as toddlers to dutifully hand over the cash in their holiday cards), “This is for college.” Recently, when the author’s six-year-old daughter opened up a greeting card from her grandparents, she picked up the bills that fell out, waved them in the air, and exclaimed with a wide grin, “Yay! College degrees!” The positive effect on attitude and the commitment to academic prepara- tion gained by planning for college attendance with an educational savings account—no matter the amount saved—suggests that requiring students to meet a performance standard to access the FSA-eligible curriculum would spur similar dedication to academic preparation in the critical years leading up to college enrollment. And unlike the savings strategy, which more than likely would have to be opted into by each child’s guardians, an admission standard to the FSA-eligible curriculum observed by the nation’s community THE ACCESS EFFECT 123 colleges would automatically apply to every American student. Requiring adequate academic preparation before awarding FSA eligibility should not be perceived as a penalty because it will promote secondary achievement and postsecondary completion while safeguarding public funds and unprepared students. Clearly, the solution to improving postsecondary completion requires dis- rupting the pattern of low achievement motivation in K-12 students and inducing them to engage and accomplish much more academically in the years leading up to college enrollment. Enormous US achievement gains are well within our reach, but thus far we have refused to commit to a policy package that will achieve them, and tragically with the backward reason- ing that asking anything more of young American students than we cur- rently do would reduce their opportunity. America currently has a fleet of idle coulda-been engineers, scientists, and medical doctors consigned to jobs far below their intellectual capabilities, solely because their K-12 years were spent unproductively, which left them wholly unprepared to take advantage of higher education. The cure to cancer has walked among us, but she went uneducated in Minnesota. A clean energy solution that would change the world sits unmo- tivated in the back row in a rural South Dakota high school; he will enroll at a community college but never complete a credential for lack of adequate preparation. Our finest political leader—the one who would lead America commendably—is not being challenged in his California middle school; he would respond to the call, but his community asks nothing of him. He is far too young to see what is possible and to know that he should challenge him- self more than the adults around him will. He will not be prepared for college when the time comes, and the nation will never know his name or gifts. Without question, postsecondary success depends on how committed stu- dents are to taking advantage of their educational experiences in the years leading up to postsecondary education. Academic preparation and student commitment are inextricably linked with postsecondary success. Therefore, K-12 students must become engaged educational partners if necessary rigor is to be maintained at all educational levels and the percentage of American citizens holding postsecondary credentials with labor market value is to be increased. There is no way to genuinely accomplish greater postsecondary completion while maintaining standards without inducing much more com- mitment from the students ultimately responsible for academic achievement. Because we live in an era of college going, we must also live in an era of college preparing. And because we must live in a nation of college preparing, students must understand it is primarily their responsibility to prepare, which means the job of responsible adults is determining how to best get that mes- sage across to American youth. When policy can help efficiently and effec- tively communicate the vital need for K-12 students to engage and prepare for college, it should be adopted. This page intentionally left blank Chapter 9

Creating a New Admission Standard

Scholars throughout the history of American higher education have asked the following three questions: “What is the purpose of postsecondary educa- tion? Who should attend college? What should the curriculum look like?”1 The value in examining these questions concerning purpose, access, and curriculum in higher education comes from understanding that they have been answered differently throughout history and rightly so. Answers have fluctuated in response to both the desires and needs of college students in America within ever-changing national and global contexts. The argument put forward by ardent equity advocates that every American should be given the chance to initially enroll in college-bound or college-level coursework at a community college, even if the odds of failure are extraor- dinarily high, is often accompanied by concerns that irreparable damage is inflicted on an individual when they are denied access to the FSA-eligible curriculum. But between our current system of open admissions and FSA award to unprepared students, we seem to be overlooking the reality that we are already inflicting this damage. We simply enroll them first, charge them and taxpayers for semesters of courses, and then saddle students with failing grades, a damning transcript, and potentially significant personal debt. How much more humane would it be if from the beginning we required students to demonstrate modest possession of basic skills before being allowed to enroll in the FSA-eligible experience? The faulty logic in continuing “right to fail” admissions policy in twenty- first-century America is that with geographical and financial access having been virtually achieved in the latter half of the twentieth century, much new student growth comes by necessity from deeper into the achievement ranks of each high school graduating class—from students who are neither pre- pared, nor in many cases motivated, to complete a postsecondary credential. If open admission to higher education had a desirable positive effect on stu- dent achievement, we would have seen community college enrollment and completion rise together over the years. Instead, while we can observe gener- ally steady increases in postsecondary enrollment since the 1960s, we have not experienced a rise in postsecondary completion in kind. Much evidence 126 COMMUNITY COLLEGES AND THE ACCESS EFFECT indicates that a great deal of the problem is due to many students arriving grossly unprepared to meet even reduced performance expectations at the community college. The federal government already generously provides four-year achievement gap insurance by allowing FSA to be applied in the postsecondary setting to education activities all the way down to the beginning of the secondary curriculum, even as regulations require all eligible students to possess a high school diploma or the equivalent, a concession that promising students can benefit from public support to enroll in curriculum connected to college- level courses. It certainly can be debated whether the admissions standard required to enroll in the FSA-eligible curriculum should be set higher than ninth grade, but applying existing FSA regulations to all students wishing to enroll in the FSA-eligible curriculum at community colleges would be a good place to start and would go a long way to inducing student engagement in the years leading up to college enrollment and protecting seriously unpre- pared from permanently destroying their postsecondary eligibility with the affordable community college.

The Bar Must Be Raised at Community Colleges Above all, the community college is a treasure to Americans in search of knowledge and improvement and it should remain accessible by all; in fact, additional programs should be created and enrollment should be expanded to promote lifelong learning in every community. Very few community col- leges could be said to exercise a truly laissez-faire admissions policy today, if such policy is defined as allowing students to enroll in any college-level course or program. The majority of community colleges already utilize placement exams to guide students into required developmental education courses and to observe prerequisites to certain programs, for example. The point is that an intelligent, modern community college admission policy could be articulated that ultimately would increase access to meaningful postsecondary education opportunities at community colleges for more community members, while also more efficiently utilizing public funds and serving as the productivity spur at the secondary level needed for students to improve postsecondary completion without lowering standards. The NCEE released findings in a 2013 report that attempted to determine what college- and career-ready really means by evaluating community college curriculum expectations. One of the report’s principal recommendations was that community colleges demand much more of their students. The authors stressed, though, that education reformers and policymakers thinking of raising community college curriculum standards must “bear in mind that a large fraction of high school graduates cannot now do the work required of them in the first year of the typical community college program,”2 and the follow-up recommendation was that educators should first prepare “all high school students to succeed against the current community college standards, before we raise the bar even further.”3 CREATING A NEW ADMISSION STANDARD 127

The suggested policy sequence—that high school exit standards must be raised before community colleges could dare demand any performance stan- dard for admission—misses the fact that an admissions requirement to enter the FSA-eligible community college curriculum is the performance-inducing high school exit standard incarnate that the NCEE correctly appraised as the solution. Yes, the CCSS accomplish higher standards, but currently with no performance impact on community college eligibility to the FSA-eligible curriculum. The obvious answer to increasing secondary productivity—and, therefore, postsecondary completion—is to apply a modest admission stan- dard to the FSA-eligible curriculum at the nation’s community college. The easiest way to accomplish this is to minimally begin enforcing exist- ing FSA eligibility regulations to the FSA-eligible curriculum for all stu- dents interested in enrolling, regardless of whether or not they apply for or use FSA and, like Pima, to cease allowing high school diplomas to qual- ify a student for the FSA-eligible curriculum until such time all are tied to exit exams that minimally certify basic skills are at least equivalent to the ninth grade. Exceptions should be granted for students having earned International Baccalaureate diplomas, for example, and any other similar advanced academic programs that serve to verify students’ basic skills are beyond question. Importantly, students need not wait until senior year to establish eligibility for the FSA-eligible curriculum. ACTs or SATs taken earlier, as well as approved CCSS exams, for example, could qualify students and would not need to be left until late in the high school career. The plan- ning effects on achievement would positively affect student engagement and commitment and raise academic achievement as a result. As in the 1940s and 1960s, our nation’s responsive community colleges have yet another prime opportunity to play hero in American higher education history, this time by positively inducing sorely needed student commitment in so many capable young Americans and by increasing the number of college- and career-ready high school graduates, which would positively affect post- secondary completion rates. The overall effect would spill into the four-year setting as students who considered the community college, but elected not to attend, would be much better primed for success in college-level courses, as would students who eventually transfer from the community college. Community colleges should not be afraid to institute an admissions stan- dard to the FSA-eligible curriculum; they should be afraid not to, because in so many ways they alone in higher education possess the power to sig- nificantly improve the prosperity of our nation with new policy adoption and commitment to existing policy. In describing the continuation of the time-honored tradition in education of downward blame that each institu- tion higher in the chain assigns to each one lower for student arriving inad- equately prepared at their next institution, NCEE president Marc S. Tucker pronounced that, “Each one of these actors basically seems helpless.”4 And many others truly are . . . but not community colleges. These institutions hold enormous power to alter secondary achievement and postsecondary completion; of all the institutions in the public education chain, community 128 COMMUNITY COLLEGES AND THE ACCESS EFFECT colleges possess the greatest opportunity to exercise leadership and change the course of American history. As it stands, with promised access to higher education and FSA, many students feel emboldened to take the first 13 years of their education off. With our current policy environment of open access and effectively standards-free FSA access, how could we expect not to have a postsecondary preparation and completion problem? The NCEE report repeatedly warned that introducing higher standards at the community college without first ensuring current high school students could meet those standards would be a grave tactical error. Tucker labeled such a move “irresponsible”5 and cautioned that “such a policy stance will only make a tough situation worse.”6 Granted, attaching an unusually high performance requirement for admission to the FSA-eligible curriculum or one without adequate warning would be disastrous and unfair. In fact, the most legitimate charge that could be levied against Pima for its 2012 admis- sions change is that the Tucson-area high schools’ class of 2012 had not been given much time to prepare to meet PCC’s new performance standard—even one set as low as the seventh grade. But, merely implementing the CCSS and hoping that all students will suddenly rise to the higher standards will stimu- late nowhere near the secondary achievement such an improved curriculum could. Therefore, the answer lies in requiring more of students before they are allowed to access the FSA-eligible curriculum and in honoring existing FSA regulations, while maintaining an open door to a host of other post- secondary education experiences and especially making instruction available to help students establish eligibility for the FSA-eligible curriculum who do not initially qualify. Energy around the national completion agenda, scads of student success data, and common sense instruct that postsecondary achievement is more important than winning access when one is grossly unprepared. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan declared the same: “To be real clear, I think that’s been the problem with federal policy in the past is 100 percent has been focused on the front end inputs, that’s clearly important, but that’s the starting point. That gets you in the game. The goal isn’t to get to the game, the goal is to get to the finish line.”7 Yet, rather than demand any performance whatsoever up front of students to access the FSA-eligible curriculum, popular completion recommendations—particularly those aimed at increasing the success rates of low-skilled students—emphasize continued access followed by heavy lifting at the postsecondary level, though enough can never be done by instructors or students to make up for K-12 careers of academic disengagement. Most in power at community colleges would never consider limiting access to the FSA-eligible curriculum for fear of the enrollment drop-off and/or the political fallout Pima endured. Roueche and Roueche described well the dilemma that egalitarian-minded community college leaders wrestle with in an attempt to maintain academic integrity in an open door environment:

There is reluctance on the part of many administrators and faculty to imple- ment standards that work to improve both persistence and achievement. Many CREATING A NEW ADMISSION STANDARD 129

colleges have focused so much on providing access that they have difficulty establishing requirements or prerequisites that might block student opportu- nity for higher education.8

Former California Secretary of Education Gary Hart was less forgiving of community college leadership when he wrote in an op-ed piece titled “Community Colleges’ Old Guard Resist Changes to Help Students Succeed”: “It’s sadly ironic that those who speak about the community college mission to help vulnerable students are unwilling to embrace sensible reforms.”9 Yet, between policy and law, many administrators who profess ideological interest in restricting access to the FSA-eligible curriculum to better serve the com- munity feel they are unable to act without serious reprisal. A frequently repeated, yet error-riddled, argument against establishing a modest admissions requirement to access the FSA-eligible community col- lege curriculum is that doing so would be tantamount to denying or limiting opportunity. That could only be said if meaningful postsecondary alterna- tives could not be and were not provided, if such a policy move did not lead to much-improved postsecondary completion rates by number and not just percentage, and if maintaining open access to the FSA-eligible curriculum for those with seriously low skills resulted in no harm. Another argument made by those opposed to an admissions standard on the FSA-eligible curriculum is that unqualified students would be enrolled in experiences farther removed from college course enrollment, which would extend their time-to-completion and create more entry/exit points in a leaky pipeline, two features well-known to reduce completion likelihood. This argument fails to acknowledge that, by far, the most outstanding benefit gained by instituting a performance standard to access the FSA-eligible curriculum is that fewer high school graduates in the future would need to enroll in developmental education courses. Most capable students con- sidering the community college would apply themselves as they should in secondary school and would arrive eligible to enroll in the FSA-eligible cur- riculum, directly into college-level courses, and would succeed. Enrollment, retention, and persistence to completion would improve in real numbers if enrollment in the FSA-eligible curriculum were restricted to reasonably well- prepared students. To illustrate the potential of a community college admissions standard on a minuscular level, an administrator overseeing the Pathways to Pima program shared that an unexpected positive by-product of installing the FSA-eligible curriculum admissions requirement was a marked increase in incoming students’ awareness of the placement test, preparation for it, and the seriousness with which they took the exam.10 Student motivation and desire to perform well academically increased noticeably when access to the FSA-eligible curriculum was suddenly no longer guaranteed; students became much more serious and deliberate in preparation. Similarly, when the low-income author’s tuition remission through athletics was directly tied to her ability to qualify for and academically achieve at institutions with high 130 COMMUNITY COLLEGES AND THE ACCESS EFFECT academic standards, she suddenly engaged—it is not surprising to witness how much more an opportunity is appreciated when a reasonable investment is required of a beneficiary. In a new admissions environment, it would be imperative that meaning- ful postsecondary education alternatives were provided both on campus and in connection with the community college for students who do not initially qualify for the FSA-eligible curriculum, precisely as called for in both Pima’s and Colorado’s plans. Courses below the FSA-eligible curriculum could still be offered at the community college, but FSA would not be applica- ble. Other preparatory experiences could be further developed than they already are, while never-ending opportunity to qualify for the FSA-eligible curriculum can be maintained so that the door would always remain open to students who qualify. To protect FSA, both as a public resource and as an individual benefit, seriously unprepared students not ready to capitalize on the investment upon initial entry should first be directed to alternatives that appropriately address their personal academic, career, and personal growth needs while real pathways from every alternative are maintained for initially underprepared students to establish eligibility for the FSA-eligible curriculum. Jeff Selingo said it extremely well when he advised: “One of the best ways to improve completion rates and fill jobs is to make sure that students who go to college after high school are truly ready for it, or else channel them into alternatives that motivate them to go eventually, or give them needed skills for the workplace.”11 That’s what Pima did; that’s what the state of Colorado is doing. A frequent accusation levied at community college faculty who favor establishing a modest admissions requirement to the FSA-eligible curricu- lum is that of “creaming”—that in an environment of increased account- ability, faculty are just looking to easily and artificially boost completion percentages by skimming the highest performers off the top, or in this case by refusing to enroll the lowest-skilled students. Ironically, community col- lege faculty committed to community development have been arguing the benefits of maintaining access while installing an admissions requirement to FSA-eligible coursework for years—long before performance funding was revived. More than anything, community college educators desire to strengthen their communities and wish not to see especially their most frag- ile community members seriously injured or destroyed as a result of their time with the community college. A 2009 Chronicle of Higher Education piece asked a panel of economists and higher education policy experts to respond to the following question: “Are too many students going to college?” In addition to acknowledging the benefits of traditional college experiences, some panelists suggested that too many unqualified and poorly-matched American students are funneled into a narrow postsecondary experience, and that because “students’ lives are at stake, not just enrollment targets,”12 higher education institutions have a moral obligation to “not admit a student it believes would more wisely attend another institution or pursue a noncollege postsecondary option.”13 Faculty CREATING A NEW ADMISSION STANDARD 131 witness up close and personal the carnage of students who enroll in academic settings far beyond their level of preparedness, and faculty who support a modest admission standard to the FSA-eligible curriculum wish for nothing more than the opportunity to beneficially serve their communities. Developmental educators would truthfully like to work themselves out of those settings and into the college classroom; the heavy majority of those who argue for a performance requirement at the community college are both well-qualified to instruct at the college level and would much prefer their cur- rent rosters of developmental education students arrived prepared and were enrolling and succeeding in those courses instead. Far too many intellectually capable students enroll with significant basic skills deficiencies that could be considerably avoided by establishing a performance standard to access the FSA-eligible curriculum at the nation’s community colleges. Developmental educators, aware that the community college is a major destination in the com- munity for all postsecondary students, also see failed opportunity in the com- munity to more comprehensively address the unique postsecondary education needs of community members with ID, many of whom would not qualify for the FSA-eligible curriculum in a policy environment with an admissions standard and who would instead thrive in postsecondary programs designed specifically with their needs and their families’ needs in mind. When students with ID and extremely low-skilled students are auto- matically enrolled as a matter of practice in the FSA-eligible developmen- tal curriculum—in short-sighted manner, which suggests that a particular postsecondary setting is the only one that matters—faculty do not suggest the solution of a modest admissions requirement to plump success rates by creaming the best students onto their class rosters. As caring educators and concerned community members, they feel compelled to call attention to the massive loss of human capital and public and private resources unwisely invested in experiences that predictably yield no benefits for far too many. They preside daily in their classrooms over the raw, uncultivated potential of the many intellectually capable recent high school graduates with staggering basic skills deficits, the result of undisciplined K-12 engagement, and they ask, “What can we do to motivate K-12 students to care more in the thirteen years leading up to the postsecondary experiences so that they are as ready as they can be for college so that they arrive both academically prepared and motivated to succeed? And how can we better serve members of our com- munity with different postsecondary needs than can be met with the devel- opmental or college-level curriculum?” Community college educators are not interested in artificially increasing their success rates by playing with the enrollment denominator; their long-term goal is to increase overall student success in real numbers by growing the number of secondary students imme- diately qualifying for and succeeding in college-level coursework. It is in this spirit that many community college educators welcome a modest admissions standard to the FSA-eligible curriculum. A modest admissions requirement to the FSA-eligible curriculum at the community college—and a soft landing that keeps the community 132 COMMUNITY COLLEGES AND THE ACCESS EFFECT college open door to alternative postsecondary education programs and opportunities—would protect many community college students from over- enrolling right from the start and spare them the severe, punishing effects brought on by the combination of low GPA, financial aid repercussions, and accumulated debt for their effort that often ruins any chance at a pro- ductive postsecondary experience. A modest community college admissions requirement to access the FSA-eligible curriculum would importantly allow the redirection of funds previously wasted on unsuccessful low-level devel- opmental education experiences to unrealized and underfunded programs where community members with low skills can actually have their needs met—AEL, CPTPs for students with ID, contextualized and applied non- credit programs, and workforce training programs, for example, that do not carry with them the damaging effects of failing in the FSA-eligible curricu- lum. All of this could be accomplished while potentially generating through savings a much-needed boost to Pell award for low-income students who deserve and desperately need much greater financial support.

The New Admission Standard in Two Easy Steps First, the federal government must re-establish the Ability to Benefit (ATB) provision in FSA regulations. Two benefits will result immediately. One, an avenue will be restored by which students who do not possess a genuine high school diploma or the equivalent can expeditiously demonstrate that they not only belong in the FSA-eligible curriculum but also deserve public support for that setting. Two, in the new admissions era, federally-approved ATB tests can serve the dual purpose of qualifying all interested students for the FSA-eligible curriculum. Second, simply by honoring the existing FSA rule that FSA not be applied to curriculum below the secondary (or ninth-grade) level, the FSA-eligible curriculum is established. Any curriculum experiences offered below the ninth grade automatically become self- or other funded and can remain entirely open or subject to any enrollment requirements a community col- lege cares to apply, unless the experience is for ESL students or students with ID enrolled in approved programs to meet each group’s unique curriculum needs below the ninth grade. Another important benefit gained from reintroducing ATB is that stu- dents who were enrolled in modified core curriculum in high school will always have a way to establish FSA eligibility, since a high school diploma awarded while enrolled in modified core curriculum would not alone garner admission to the FSA-eligible curriculum and currently should not enable FSA eligibility. Cognitive function is not static and can sometimes improve over time due to medication, therapy, and even the healing passage of time. The most obvious example is the unpredictable and often astounding healing that takes place over time in those who have suffered a traumatic brain injury. An ATB proviso and admissions policy on the FSA-eligible curriculum would CREATING A NEW ADMISSION STANDARD 133 allow any student who may have enrolled in modified curriculum in high school the important opportunity to establish FSA eligibility. In reinstating ATB, the U.S. Department of Education can and should identify more ATB tests than the ten or so exams approved at an earlier time. Additional ATB tests on top of those previously approved by the govern- ment should be all college entrance and placement exams and could pos- sibly include WorkKeys assessments and certainly CCSS scores if/when those exams prove to measure skills at least on par with those of a student ready to enroll at least in the ninth-grade curriculum. Unlike previous ATB rules that forced students to establish FSA eligibility in a norm-referenced manner, objective cut scores should be negotiated and roughly equated to the ninth-grade-level equivalency for two reasons. First, score changes need- lessly introduce more to monitor for college officials overseeing FSA and more for students to consider in preparing to qualify; however, much more importantly, approved exams like the ACT, for example, are taken by high- achieving college-bound students. Why should students trying to establish eligibility for a particular curriculum have their enrollment fate decided by the average of a high-achieving group if the point is to determine their readi- ness of skills for a set curriculum? The federally-approved ATB scores could serve as one of multiple vari- ables considered to guide students both within the FSA-eligible curriculum and in the host of non-FSA–eligible alternatives. If a student is unable to establish eligibility for the FSA-eligible curriculum, especially after multiple attempts, the question “Why not?” deserves to be asked and thoughtfully answered. The answers to that question will assist educational professionals and students in determining what postsecondary education options would serve their existing needs best, even if the answer is that the student just needs more or different instruction and time to qualify for the FSA-eligible curriculum. Far better to do that on the cheap by funding outside the FSA structure or enrolling in free AEL and/or continuing education seminars than to provide students access to both FSA and academic settings poorly matched to their instructional needs.

Change the Approach to Change the Outcomes The OECD’s final assessment of America’s potential to change and regain international competitiveness was encouraging: “American education is nothing if not inventive, and that is a great asset in (an) age in which the future depends on doing things differently.”14 President Truman changed American higher education in the 1940s by responding to the returning World-War-II soldiers with the GI Bill and support of open access commu- nity colleges; will American leadership respond again by recognizing that Truman’s vision of access to higher education for all qualified students has been achieved and acknowledge that the greatest access frontier that remains is genuine college-readiness? 134 COMMUNITY COLLEGES AND THE ACCESS EFFECT

As noted in the OECD report, “Everything else being equal, countries that place a high value on education get better educational results than coun- tries that do not.” The most important facets of higher education access— geographic and financial—have been achieved for most Americans through our nationwide network of community colleges. It is past time to require something of students wishing to access the FSA-eligible curriculum while maintaining postsecondary education access to appropriately address the unique developmental needs of students with ID, for example, and those with exceptionally low basic skills. Or, as James Pelligrino said in review of 2007’s Tough Choices or Tough Times: “It is time for us to stop tinkering at the edges of the educational enterprise. . . . (W)e need to stop rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, reinvest the resources we have, and turn the ship in a new direction.”15 If we fail as a nation to make significant changes that promote learning and increase productivity, we can expect more of the same performance from K-12 students: “pockets of high performance but also a long tail of poorly performing students,”16 as the United States is described by the OECD. The OECD went further in its chapter on “Lessons for the United States” and posed the following: “So what is the lesson to be learned? If a country seeks better education performance, it is incumbent on the political and social leaders to persuade the citizens of that country to make the choices needed to show that it values education more than other areas of national interest.”17 Leadership. Citizens. Choices. Values. These are meritorious watchwords for admirable educational reform. Chapter 10

Providing Meaningful Postsecondary Options

The senator’s snub? “What a snob!”1 At a rally during his 2012 Republican presidential nomination run (and playing to a heartland gathering of Tea Party members), Senator Rick Santorum pilloried President Obama for “wanting everyone in America to go to college.”2 Santorum’s comments were soundly rebuked in the media as much for his inelegant name-calling as his polarizing follow-up comments, which implied that the reason President Obama sup- posedly wanted all Americans to go to college was so the Democratic Party could gain followers in the form of students indoctrinated in liberal ideology by their college professors. In comforting conservative confines that day, Santorum completed his trifecta of impolitic remarks by painting himself as a jobs-creator while President Obama a narcissist when Santorum fur- ther explained that while he would assist the blue collar, Midwestern parents in raising children to reflect conservative values and work ethic, President Obama would angle to remake conservatives’ children “in his image,”3 meaning elite and/or liberal. The hypocrisy of Senator Santorum appearing to downplay the benefits of higher education was immediately seized upon by media, since he possesses a Bachelor’s degree, an MBA, and a law degree, credentials that incontro- vertibly assisted him in securing professional and financial security.4 Other commentators were satisfied merely pointing out Santorum’s gross misrep- resentation of President Obama’s postsecondary goals for American citizens. In numerous venues beyond the January 2012 State of the Union Address, when President Obama revealed his views on postsecondary opportunity expansion on the grandest stage, he consistently and appropriately empha- sized the need for more Americans to participate in postsecondary education and training to prepare themselves to compete in an increasingly advanced, global economy, calling higher education “an economic i mperative,”5 not a luxury reserved for a select, advantaged portion of the population. Santorum’s campaign suffered greatly from the snobbery misstep, and only after drop- ping out of the primary race did he concede that his characterization of the 136 COMMUNITY COLLEGES AND THE ACCESS EFFECT president’s philosophy of expanded postsecondary education participation was inaccurate.6 In the court of public opinion? President Obama, 1; Senator Santorum, 0—which was quite unfortunate for Santorum, since both men were argu- ing the same point: that a traditional, four-year college degree is neither the only profitable, nor most appropriate, postsecondary path for all Americans to take. Robert McCartney of The Washington Post picked up on the irony: “He couldn’t have said it worse, but there was an important nugget of truth in . . . Santorum’s recent gaffe,”7 calling the Senator’s comments “a public service . . . by calling attention to the reality that not everybody needs to spend four years in college.”8 McCartney also used the word “meaningful,”9 to describe the goal of educating and training Americans to fill jobs not necessarily requiring a four-year degree in booming employment sectors, such as cybersecurity, biotechnology, and health information technology, yet lamented that students and these programs currently “receive short shrift”10 in terms of the respect they commanded from politicians, parents, and high school counselors and advisors. The traditional, rewarding higher education experiences of those advising students may bias them from confidently counseling others to consider walk- ing down a non-traditional postsecondary educational path, even though doing so for many would be more beneficial. Jeff Selingo, author of the 2013 book College (Un)bound: The Future of Higher Education and What it Means for Students, wrote the following about the need for counseling and advising paradigm shifts in the article On Student’s Paths to College, Some Detours are Desirable in the Chronicle of Higher Education:

Perhaps the most important change may prove the most difficult: a shift of atti- tude on the part of parents, guidance counselors, and higher-education officials themselves, about college being the place to go right after high school. . . . This is about creating more pathways to college. . . . Rather than view additional pathways to their institutions as new competitors, colleges should see them as ways to improve their own completion rates, expand educational opportunities to more students, and provide the American economy with the skilled work- force of tomorrow.11

In McCartney’s article, Superintendent Jack D. Dale of Fairfax School in Virginia acknowledged the reality that some academically low-skilled high school graduates would have profited handsomely from enrolling in the career and technical courses offered at his high school, such as welding and plumbing, if only they hadn’t been steered away from them by well- intentioned parents and/or advisors insisting otherwise. Jim Ryan, CEO of Chicago-based Grainger, an international, $8 billion/year industrial sup- ply and maintenance company, echoed Dale’s sentiments that misperception persists about skilled trades and technical work being “dirty and menial”12 work, adding that Grainger works closely with the AACC to improve the technical training of skilled trades workers. PROVIDING MEANINGFUL POSTSECONDARY OPTIONS 137

Slowly, perception of the value of technical and vocational education is improving in America, buoyed in part by recent federal investment in a series of U.S. Department of Labor grants called Trade Adjustment Assistance Community College and Career Training (TAACCCT) that by 2014 will amount to a $2 billion investment in career training at community colleges.13 And with the rising cost of higher education and many seeking to avoid incurring too much student loan debt at a young age in an unstable economy, more secondary students are choosing to attend technical or vocational high schools, graduate with highly-demanded skills and without college debt, and directly enter the job market where in Massachusetts, for example, the aver- age starting salary in manufacturing is $45,000.14 Not bad in a recovering economy for an 18-year-old with no debt and a lifetime of on-the-job train- ing ahead of them.

The Full Finnish Success Story Finland’s school system, readily pointed to as an international model of edu- cational excellence, actually boasts an incredibly robust vocational education and training program15 for students aged 16–25, with apprenticeships open to students as young as 15.16 To increase connections and to ensure the work- force meets employer needs, The Finnish National Board of Education over- sees collaboration between The Ministry of Education, National Education and Training Committees, employers, and the trade unions.17 It is fitting to recognize Finland for possessing a model educational system, as well as for being a model for inclusive postsecondary education and lifelong learn- ing. However, Finland’s success story takes on much more meaning when it is acknowledged that, unlike the United States, far from every last Finnish citizen is herded onto a traditional college-bound track with little regard for their skills, abilities, talents, and interests. In fact, out of the 99,550 Finnish students who applied in the spring of 2013 to upper secondary education—the equivalent in America to the college-bound track—over two-thirds (66,900) applied for the three-year vocational educational and training (VET) option, which includes six months of on-the-job vocational education. Less than one-third (32,650) applied to the general upper secondary education track.18 For years, Finnish students electing to pursue the vocational upper secondary education and training track have long and far outnumbered those choosing the general upper secondary education path; in 2009, for example, less than 35,000 students applied for the general upper secondary education path while over 60,000 elected to try for the vocational upper secondary education and training program.19 Those 99,550 VET applicants from 2013 were vying for one of only 86,500 spots in the program, which determines eligibility in part by sorting between applicants holding a high school certificate and those having completed only basic education requirements, an education level less than a high school diploma. 138 COMMUNITY COLLEGES AND THE ACCESS EFFECT

Finnish students’ robust choices between eight general fields of vocational study, which lead to 53 qualifications and 119 study programs, are instru- mental to the overall success of Finland’s public education system.20 Precisely because upper secondary school acceptance is competitive, as well as college entrance, the lifelong cultural message to Finnish youth to value education is well-received and is manifest in Finland’s literacy rate, one of the highest in the world. Culturally, Finns value education. Both general and vocational paths can always lead to college. In fact, Finland has built in recent years a system of polytechnic colleges to solidify VET as “a trusted pathway to ter- tiary education.”21 Finland’s entire educational system reflects the deeply held national values that lifelong learning is of societal benefit and that one size does not fit all, a philosophy The Finnish National Board of Education articu- lates this way: “The general structure of education reflects these principles through building open avenues and avoiding dead ends which would lead offside after inconsiderate choices at whatever junction.”22A most funda- mental goal of Finnish education is to “achieve as high a level of education and competence as possible for the whole population,”23 the same philoso- phy expressed by many working to improve postsecondary outcomes for American students. Yet, not only in American community colleges do we consistently over-enroll seriously unprepared students in a narrow college degree pathway that isn’t a good fit for any number of reasons, we also fail to aggressively direct students to nontraditional options when they do hit a proverbial dead end. Compare the comprehensive Finnish approach to this Carnevale, Smith, and Strohl’s finding in their forecast of US jobs and education requirements through 2018: “In spite of its growing importance, (America’s) ability to match education alternatives with career options is woefully underdeveloped.”24 The authors added this painful indictment: “The United States is unable to help people match their educational preparation with their career ambitions—not because it cannot be done but because it simply is not being done.”25 This is true in large part because the United States has been slow to embrace all that postsecondary education can mean to a society.

Serving Communities with Vocational Education and Training Due in large part to various effects from The Great Recession, more traditional-age college students and returning adults are taking notice of increasing short-term training solutions to jumpstart careers that can become even more rewarding over time due to stackable credentials and certifications. While many of these community college programs originate in a non-credit environment—for example, in an institution’s workforce and community development’s bureau—they increasingly entail concurrent credit opportu- nities and/or eventually lead to four-year degrees and more achievements that for a variety of reasons unique to the individual would have been highly PROVIDING MEANINGFUL POSTSECONDARY OPTIONS 139 unlikely for some had they initially enrolled in an associate- or baccalaureate- focused programs. Harvard Graduate School of Education’s 2011 Pathways to Prosperity Project report spurred movement to address the very inaction highlighted by Carnevale, Smith, and Strohl, which resulted in the six-state Pathways to Prosperity Network (Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Missouri, North Carolina, and Tennessee). By giving proper attention to career-readiness, the perpetually undervalued half of the college- and career-ready emphasis for secondary students, the network collaboratively managed by Pathways to Prosperity and Jobs for the Future leaders aims to change the reality that while 70% of American high school graduates enroll in college, less than 50 percent of those students earn a four-year degree by their mid-twenties.26 The Harvard report called attention to America’s “excessive focus on the four-year college pathway”27 and argued for the “need to create additional pathways that combine rigorous academics with strong technical education to equip the majority of young people with the skills and credentials to suc- ceed in our increasingly challenging labor market.”28 The compelling piece pointed out that 27 percent of Americans holding credentials below associ- ate’s degrees, for example, actually earn more than the average of those in possession of bachelor’s degrees,29 a figure that becomes more shocking with knowledge that around 50 percent of college graduates are either unem- ployed or underemployed.30 Where the jobs are, the graduates’ skills are not, in other words. Missouri’s statewide MoHealthWINs program is a prime example of just such a unique program; it notably contextualizes basic skills, includes appro- priately accelerated non-credit and credit options, and connects with the state’s Workforce Investment Boards and employer partners.31 In 2011, Missouri’s twelve community colleges and one technical college joined forces as a con- sortium under Governor Nixon’s leadership, and were awarded more than $20 million of TAACCCT funding to educate and train more than 3,200 trade-affected Missourians (as well as unemployed, underemployed, and low-skilled adults, in various high-demand therapeutic healthcare and health information technology fields). Missouri was also the recipient of Round 2 TAACCCT funding with its nine-institution, Missouri Community College Association-led MoManufacturingWINs consortium focused on advanced manufacturing training and rigorous industry certification for student pop- ulations similar to those in MoHealthWINs. For many adult learners, fed- eral funding focused on entry into high-demand fields, like the TAACCCT grants, will provide more meaningful postsecondary options than would tra- ditional two- or four-year degree pathways, specifically because of program features such as contextualized basic skills, credit for prior learning, acceler- ated delivery, applied learning opportunities, and direct connections with employer partners. For many reasons, accelerated workforce training programs like these provide underprepared students a much greater chance at attaining long- term, meaningful employment. Students can quickly parlay early, valuable 140 COMMUNITY COLLEGES AND THE ACCESS EFFECT certifications and credentials into gainful employment while continuing or returning for advanced credentials or degrees in their field. Too many stu- dents without the financial wherewithal and time to weather a traditional two-to-four-year degree program are first enrolled on the credit side of the community college, fail to complete a meaningful postsecondary credential of any kind, and disengage from postsecondary education. Accelerated workforce training programs overseen by community colleges also often provide vitally important career and employment wrap-around services, such as job coaches, résumé crafting, interview preparation, and direct access to employer partners, program-specific benefits that don’t reach as many students as would benefit when they fail to access them as credit students. And when students enrolled exclusively in credit courses don’t suc- ceed, they frequently leave the college without being counseled toward more potentially fruitful options. While the strategy of contextualizing students’ basic skill development with college course content has never been more popular, developmental educators would agree that many of the low-skilled students presently enrolling and failing on the credit side of the college would achieve greater success in postsecondary basic skills development experiences contextualized to industry fields and/or specific jobs. Many students enroll at community colleges with the primary goal of quickly improving gainful employment and enroll on the credit side of the college when they are not presented with other options, even though their financial and life circum- stances are entirely at odds with pursuing a traditional college degree. From the perspective of all postsecondary education funders—including most students!—as Carnevale succinctly assessed: “Employability is the new goal in post-secondary education.”32

Michael For students whose complex lives predict low chance of persistence to a two- or four-year college degree, accelerated, vocationally-focused postsecondary programs can be life saving. One of the authors mentors a 22-year-old former student, Michael (a pseudonym), who at the age of 13 was orphaned after his mother, addicted to crack cocaine and working as a prostitute, died of AIDS; Michael never knew his father. With no alternative after his mother’s death but to sleep on the couch of an older relative who was deeply involved in gang and drug activity, at 16 years old, Michael was shot between the eyes at point-blank range in the middle of the night by a rival gang member “sending a message” to his older relative, an attack that required Michael to endure years of physical therapy and psychological recovery. His 16-year-old cousin died beside Michael while sleeping on the floor next to him after being shot between the eyes, as well. Michael will never fully recover physically (he is now single-sighted and deaf in one ear) and his cognitive and psychological healing is unlikely to ever be complete. But with a lot of support and encouragement from his occupational therapist, who generously took him into her home directly PROVIDING MEANINGFUL POSTSECONDARY OPTIONS 141 after months of inpatient therapy, he summoned the courage to enroll at his local community college, in his ever-positive words, “to keep progress- ing forward.” A bright young man who still contends with some lingering cognitive effects from the traumatic brain injury he suffered, Michael took the placement test, and enrolled in the highest level of developmental edu- cation courses in reading, writing, and math. Unfortunately, this young man’s daily living needs far outstripped his meager financial resources, and he immediately applied his Pell balance to outstanding debt and other expenses. When Michael arrived at the community college, he was neither unintel- ligent nor particularly low-skilled; he was, however, destitute. His life was on fire, and he tried to better it by enrolling in postsecondary education. No one ever asked him, though, whether or not he was interested in non- traditional, career-oriented programs. No one attempted to assess his dire financial situation or inquire about any other circumstances in his life that would impact his success in college-bound coursework. It was assumed by everyone who advised him that because he was of traditional college-going age and he himself did not inquire about other programs, he should start on a general education path in preparation for transfer to a four-year institution. And so, Michael was placed on a long path to payoff, one that he took only half a step down before stumbling. Besides hardships related to daily living, the young man was also strug- gling to meet legal and financial obligations stemming from theft in his teen years, driven by an attempt to survive as a minor in a callous environ- ment bereft of adequate adult supervision, guidance, and fundamental finan- cial support. The author, his developmental reading instructor at the time, watched him struggle to keep pace with a workload of 12 credit hours in his first semester in college and, unsurprisingly—yet no less heartbreaking— Michael eventually dropped two of his courses and failed the other two he believed he had a chance to pass. Instead of advising Michael to sign up again for credit-bearing courses the next semester, the author informed him of MoHealthWINs, the program in which she was integrating some of the very basic skills Michael had failed to earn credit for the previous semester. The author was confident Michael was a better candidate for this accelerated, career-focused program with cer- tificate and degree options of varying length, kind, and rigor in healthcare, an area he had great interest in due to his extensive personal experience. He would be much more likely to experience success in this applied educational environment than in the lengthy, decontextualized developmental course- work he failed to complete. Unfortunately, because Michael had withdrawn from two of his classes prior to the 60 percent attendance mark, he fell under the FSA category of R2T4 (Return to Title IV). However, none of his Pell money remained to pay off the debt to the college, since he hadn’t planned on dropping the courses. Working a minimum wage, part-time job at $7.35/ hour before taxes—the best he could get with his high school diploma— would take Michael years to pay off the debt he owed. 142 COMMUNITY COLLEGES AND THE ACCESS EFFECT

His debt to the college—incurred as a result of a hope-filled, but ill- advised, decision to enroll in credit courses—made him ineligible to enroll in the workforce training program he likely would have experienced great success in, as well as ineligible for any more financial aid or credit registra- tion until the debt was paid. He would have been better off had he not attended the community college, since all he had to show for the experi- ence was a transcript of W’s and F’s and a heavy debt. Instead of Michael’s community college experience bettering his chances, it further compromised them, which is exactly the sentiment expressed recently by student success researcher Linda Hagedorn: “Access without success: You’ve gained noth- ing. In fact, you’ve lost because of the loan problem. (Students are) in worse shape than if they had never enrolled.”33

Monique The four most capable students in the developmental courses one of the authors taught in a recent semester were low-income black students who struggled to complete the semester due to daunting obstacles in their personal lives not unique for many community college students. Three of the four were young, single mothers, and two—Monique and Breanna (pseudonyms)—sat down with the author after the semester to learn about short-term educa- tional and workforce training programs at the college that would place them in entry-level positions on a career path. Both indicated that while they had not been asked by anyone at the college upon enrollment to consider such programs, they were wholeheartedly more interested in those than the tradi- tional baccalaureate path to which they had predictably been directed. Some of the greatest value in short-term certificates, confirmed Christopher Mullin with the AACC, is that “they provide a chance to be successful quickly and early.”34 Monique, an expectant mother with two young children, arrived to her meeting with the author with her jeans unzipped, unable to afford maternity clothes. When asked about her interest in short-term programs that would place her quickly on a career path with the chance to continue her edu- cation as she worked and earned money, Monique threw her head back, laughed loudly, slapped the table, and said with an incredulous look on her face, “Excuse my French, but ‘Hell, yes!’ That would be a dream come true. . . . That would help me out big-time!”35 She then explained that a lot of students in her state of financial exigency would welcome short-term edu- cational and training options leading to employment and not perceive them as limiting opportunity because they were not pointed directly toward two- or four-year degrees. In fact, like Michael, Monique arrived at the college seeking immediate financial relief, bringing with her not the same goals and financial stability of many traditional college students. About learning mid- semester from classmates that most of the courses she was enrolled in would not count toward a degree anyway, Monique described being disappointed, “By then I was already enrolled and down a semester. . . . I don’t just be going PROVIDING MEANINGFUL POSTSECONDARY OPTIONS 143 to school to be going to school to tell people I’m going to school. No, I want to be accomplishing. Going up. Stepping up!”36 Monique’s community college experience was typical. Upon intake, she was directed to take the placement test and was then told to enroll in the tra- ditional developmental sequence after her scores were reviewed by an advisor, even though the semester schedule and pace of her coursework were quite at odds with her head-of-household responsibilities. Monique decided to try the community college as a way to improve her lot in life because it was geo- graphically accessible, and because she was told by her social worker that she could get a Pell refund. She lasted one semester and explained that she, too, had immediately spent her Pell balance on back rent and other necessities for her children, confiding that day of the meeting, “I probably got, like, fifty cents in my bank account.”37 She acknowledged that being enrolled in com- munity college coursework as a single parent caused things to get too tough during the semester and prevented her from enrolling for a second semester. Prior to enrolling, she had been able to manage her children and household while working, but she soon found the grind of nightly homework too much to keep up with. Monique, who was informed some years back when her John Doe father died at somebody’s house that “they threw him away in the trash can,”38 expressed a strong desire to be a good role model for her children after dropping out of high school at 17 when pregnant with her first child and earning her GED at 23.

Every mother—or parent—wants the lives of their children to be better, but you gotta lead. You gotta show them. . . . I like that (my children) see that I’m busting my butt to try to do what I gotta do to make it further. . . . Hopefully, I’ll have when I leave this earth not just to be the stereotype of another . . . another face on a t-shirt or another funeral. I want stock. I want land and stuff . . . for my kids when I leave this earth. And I want them to know that mama worked hard to get what she needed.39

Short-term, life-stabilizing education and training programs—an approach that would benefit Monique and many other students who desperately and quickly need to achieve greater financial security, yet who are frequently assigned to lengthy, traditional degree paths without being presented any other postsecondary options. Every citizen can benefit from mastering basic academic skills, but many could develop those skills in a career pathway that leads quickly to entry-level employment instead of being assigned to the cur- rent stable of traditional developmental offerings on the credit side of com- munity colleges pointed only at college degrees with and a too-distant payday. To make gains on completion, community colleges must improve in match- ing students to programs that are attainable by helping students take into consideration the complexity of their lives, including their financial capability to complete any considered program, before choosing wisely. As it stands, too many bright, capable, underprivileged students leave our nation’s community colleges with nothing but opportunity cost and debt to show for their time. 144 COMMUNITY COLLEGES AND THE ACCESS EFFECT

Breanna Twenty-year-old Breanna came to the community college for the same rea- sons as Michael and Monique. Breanna, a single mother of a two-year-old daughter, wanted to improve their life prospects through education and improved employment, too. Owing to financial and childcare issues, she struggled to complete the semester in which she was a student of one author, and laughed when asked about the obstacles she saw to earning a degree. “Having a child and the kid getting sick. You know, I couldn’t control that. So, that was tough. (I was) like, ‘You’re getting sick at the wrong time.’ But (she) didn’t plan to get sick.”40 Breanna also found the community college attractive because of the geographic accessibility, affordability, and comfort- able environment, saying, “I’m surrounded by good people. . . . I really just wish I could get (my education) there and be done.” Like Monique and Michael, Breanna immediately applied her Pell balance to outstanding bills and shared that the grant money did motivate her to enroll, but rhetorically advised others who might consider coming just for the Pell refund: “That money will last you probably not even a month. And then you have to stick it out at that point because you can’t . . . withdraw (or you will have to pay the tuition money back).”

Completion Obstacles for Low-Income Students Developmental educators who see many of their low-income students, like Michael, Monique, and Breanna, struggle in traditional developmental courses would not describe alternative, career-oriented programs designed to specifically meet the short-term training needs of low-income, under- employed/unemployed adults as discriminatory or unnecessarily limiting. Developmental educator and author Mike Rose warned of the stereotype that some educators employ in equating middle- and upper-class white stu- dents with abstract thinking capabilities while associating ethnic minorities with being more hands-on or vocational learners, something he labeled “the tight chain-link of cognition-education-work-and social class.”41 Students from low-income populations who are extremely bright and promising often fail to complete degree programs because their responsibilities and financial abilities are quite at odds with the requirements for success in traditional, semester-long courses, much less what is needed to endure the length of a two- or four-year-plus degree program. In 2008, on average, for full-time, single-institution undergraduate student with a family income below $30,200, college costs accounted for 72 percent of the family income after grant aid,42 and college costs continue to rise. Naturally, an inverse relationship exists between family income and percent- age of college cost responsibility after financial aid: the more money earned, the lower the percentage of income goes toward college costs. The college cost/family income percentage difference, though, is just obscene for low- income students. Students belonging to families in the next h ighest income PROVIDING MEANINGFUL POSTSECONDARY OPTIONS 145 bracket ($30,201–$54,000) see the percentage of their income dedicated to college costs cut in half (36 percent) compared with the least financially capable.43 Many of the lowest-income students fail to complete a postsecond- ary certificate or degree not because of ability or skills but because they are one $5 bicycle tire tube or a lost bus pass away from not being able to attend class. Their financial ability to withstand any budget modulation is nil. But constantly hearing the message to get a college education, they enroll at the community college and are invariably placed on a lengthy pathway in a gen- eral transfer program leading to a two- or four-year degree. Tracking low-income and/or minority students into career-focused train- ing versus degree-granting programs has historically been blamed for per- petuating inequity. However, as Rose suggested in his blog entry Rethinking Remedial Education and the Academic-Vocational Divide,44 vocational education can be reimagined so that it does not perpetuate and exacerbate equity gaps. The good news is that innovative, career-focused postsecondary experiences that facilitate swifter employment entry than traditional degree programs have been expanding in recent years. These are important postsec- ondary educational and training options to develop and offer through com- munity colleges for citizens who need to gain basic financial stability and look to the community college to meet that need. Accelerated/short-term, non-traditional, career-focused programs that lead to gainful employment are inarguably better for students who enroll on the credit side of the col- lege, fail, and leave without any credential—and very often with insufferable, inescapable personal debt. In a 2006 Chronicle of Higher Education article that outlined lessons community colleges might learn from for-profit institutions, a former com- munity college president and higher education policy professor pointed out the advantage of curricular efficiency proprietary schools have long enjoyed over the standard two-year fare at community colleges. He emphasized that “in certain cases, the benefits of minimizing general education may outweigh the loss (of some general education requirements)”45 insofar as streamlined, applied postsecondary experiences are both mutually preferred by some students and highly valued by employers when program competen- cies are tied directly to hiring requirements. These lessons should encour- age the direction of more federal funding to community colleges, to not only offer career-focused postsecondary experiences for students needing a quicker route to gainful employment, but also to investigate training and employment options for the nation’s lowest-skilled students who enroll by default in decontextualized, college-bound developmental coursework and fail en masse to qualify for general education experiences that are even less directly connected with employment opportunity. Had Michael gained financial stability in his life as a result of income generated from an entry-level healthcare job, he would have then been bet- ter positioned to begin again down a path to a two- or four-year degree. In fact, he would have had the option in his federally funded, non-credit pro- gram to meet his developmental education requirements so that he would be 146 COMMUNITY COLLEGES AND THE ACCESS EFFECT ready to enroll in and succeed in college-level courses in the future. Instead, Michael is currently a community college statistic, with no immediate access to higher education, little hope of paying off his debt to the college to regain the ability to re-enroll anywhere in the college, and is sitting in jail as a con- sequence of financial instability and reabsorbing himself in the tumultuous culture from which he came. Monique is out of school, on public assistance, and just gave birth to a baby girl. Breanna, now on academic probation, found a job with tuition assistance on her own and hopes to return to college after taking a semester off when her daughter is a little older. Instead of clinging to the mantra of College For All! as the only way a per- son beyond high school can succeed, postsecondary advisors of all kinds— parents, high school and college counselors and advisors, developmental educators, college-level instructors, administrators, politicians, etc.—must become educated about and embrace valuable career and technical education programs in their region. Too many interested and intellectually capable stu- dents never get advised into programs they could thrive in, and it’s a good thing for America that’s beginning to change.

Models for a New Day Breaking Through is one example of a career-focused program that Jobs For the Future (JFF) oversees in 41 community colleges and 22 states.46 JFF is both publicly and privately funded and is connected with the most promi- nent employers and foundations focused on America’s completion agenda.47 In particular, Breaking Through aims to serve high school dropouts and some of the 93 million Americans with high school diplomas and GEDs but basic skill levels below the eighth grade.48 Breaking Through also employs the I-BEST model for its ABE to Credentials initiative.49 Out of conversa- tions between Breaking Through and the College and Career Transitions Initiative, a collection of higher education and workforce development con- vened through The League for Innovation in the Community College pub- lished a call to action piece entitled Career Pathways as a Systemic Framework: Rethinking Education for Student Success in College and Careers,50 which served to advance the national discussion around the strategy of enrolling students in educational pathways as a way to increase retention and per- sistence to meaningful postsecondary credentials and related careers. The white paper emphasized adopting proven programmatic features as seamless secondary-to-postsecondary transitions, mastery-based learning, contextu- alized basic skills, alternative delivery methods, case management, blended funding, and employer partnerships, among other strategies. The Joyce Foundation’s Shifting Gears initiative and the Office of Community College Research and Leadership’s (OCCRL) resulting Pathways to Results programs are two more successful and growing programs of note that provide alternatives to traditional degree paths and focus on P-20 preparation by connecting students to postsecondary experiences that lead to meaning- ful employment. Funding for Shifting Gears officially ended in 2011, but the PROVIDING MEANINGFUL POSTSECONDARY OPTIONS 147 work started by “re-engineering adult education, workforce development and postsecondary education policies to support economic growth and expand job opportunities for low-skilled workers in the Midwest”51 in order to gain on the completion agenda continues today in the six states funded initially: Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin. Minnesota’s Shifting Gears program, called FastTrac, received approval from Governor Mark Dayton for expansion into all 25 Minnesota community and technical colleges via the state’s workforce development council.52 Pathways to Results, a program also overseen by the OCCRL, has deep roots in the equity agenda, and specifically aims to improve postsecond- ary transition to employment outcomes by utilizing career pathway plan- ning for “underserved students, including . . . racially and ethnically diverse, low income, low literacy and first generation college (students).”53 Part of Illinois’ work in Shifting Gears resulted in a statewide directory of “bridge” programs, defined as those meant to “prepare adults with limited academic or limited English skills to enter and succeed in credit-bearing postsecond- ary education and training leading to career-path employment in high- demand, middle- and high-skilled occupations.”54 Three core elements of Illinois’ bridge programs are contextualization of basic skills, career develop- ment, and transition services from educational non-credit settings to credit or occupational programs.55 As its name suggests, Pathways to Results ties educational experiences to career pathways or “nationally recognized career clusters,”56 and is designed for those 16 years or older with reading and math levels at or exceeding the sixth-grade level. In the summary of a study focused on increasing student success in com- munity college gatekeeper courses for students with basic skills remediation needs, one of the CCRC’s researchers’ key recommendations was for com- munity colleges to “consider recommending alternative enrollment pathways for students in the lowest level of developmental courses.”57 The researchers reference Washington state’s I-BEST model and suggest that for the lowest- skilled students currently enrolling, occupational certificate programs not requiring college-level math and English may be a better starting point than decontextualized developmental coursework. Directing low-skilled students into college-bound developmental courses who lose their eligibility rights with the college without then being counseled toward other potentially rewarding options are not the hallmarks of a progressive community social and economic plan. These programmatic exemplars demonstrate how meaningful postsecond- ary alternatives can be designed and delivered. However, it is particularly important that alternative program growth is accompanied by the institu- tion of a community college admission standard to boost secondary student achievement and reduce the number of unprepared secondary students who have no other choice than to enroll in postsecondary programs serving low- skilled adults. Put bluntly, America is expected to experience an increasingly sharp divide between skilled employment that requires highly educated/ trained workers and far less financially rewarding jobs requiring little e ducation 148 COMMUNITY COLLEGES AND THE ACCESS EFFECT and/or training. Advanced manufacturing is growing, but most new jobs demand critical thinkers with highly developed skills; these are not the repeti- tive, low-skilled factory jobs of decades earlier. Nowhere near the number of financially-rewarding, low-skilled jobs needed to support a middle class in America are expected to exist in the future. Therefore, it is imperative that in addition to providing such meaningful alternatives, every American is encouraged to develop marketable skills through advanced education and/or training to qualify for rewarding employment in our country. Furthermore, because twenty-first-century Americans can expect to work in more careers over a lifetime than any previous generation, the employ- ment advantages of being a lifelong and savvy learner have never been more apparent. In short, postsecondary alternatives to the college-degree path curriculum represent a critically important area of growth for community colleges to pursue. But, developing hearty learners in the K-12 system to reduce the number of high school graduates who have no choice but by their skills to be served in an alternative postsecondary setting is paramount.

Developmental Education in Context Hunter Boylan, director of the National Center for Developmental Education, has assiduously advocated bridge-building between developmental educa- tion programs and other postsecondary programs and settings, in addition to recommending that higher education institutions expand postsecondary alternatives to traditional developmental education offerings. In 1999, he published Exploring Alternatives to Remediation,58 and reported at the time that community colleges were not systematically offering alternatives to the traditional, lengthy sequences of developmental courses when a variety of options would better meet enrolling students’ needs. Five years later, Boylan wrote a paper in the Council for Advancement of Adult Literacy’s Community College Series, the focus of which was the many benefits accrued from cre- ating partnerships and linkages between adult education and developmen- tal education activities.59 Most adult education programs usually include components of secondary education credentialing for adults (GED pursuit), English language acquisition, and basic skills development, all of which are offered to better prepare community members for work, further education, and/or richer family and citizenship participation.60 Because there can be considerable overlap of curriculum covered in AEL and developmental edu- cation, Boylan suggested that:

Some students at the lower end of the developmental education spectrum might best be placed in adult education. This would not only put them in pro- grams designed specifically to address lower skill levels but it would also place them in courses that, unlike developmental education, are free.61

Likewise, Boylan pointed out that many AEL students “at the upper range of skill levels of adult education . . . could succeed in developmental education PROVIDING MEANINGFUL POSTSECONDARY OPTIONS 149 courses, (and that) participation in developmental education might speed their entry into the college curriculum.”62 During a meeting with the director of business and community develop- ment at a neighboring community college about how her community col- lege could better connect developmental education activities with related programs, such as career and technical education, AEL, GED, etc, one of the authors was surprised to discover, after her colleague urged her to investigate, that the largest feeder “institution” into credit enrollment at her large, suburban college was not one of the many large local high schools, but instead the college’s own AEL program. This was true at her colleague’s institution, as well.63 Armed with the knowledge that a significant number of his college’s stu- dents enrolled after first attending AEL, the author’s colleague collaborated with AEL staff and teachers, developmental educators, and career and techni- cal education faculty and program administrators to create a comprehensive set of options for students who accessed any of those programs at his col- lege to ensure student needs were better met and that institutional response was appropriate when students needed to transition to another program or setting. He had even partnered with Vocational Rehabilitation, a resource outside the institution, to ensure that when another community partner could better assist a current student, the referral was made. He described his college’s approach of comprehensively wrapping services around incom- ing students as “getting students better prepared as adults,”64 which is very different from the well-intentioned, but misguided, “Everyone in the Credit End of the Community College Pool, Whether or Not You can Swim” phi- losophy subscribed to by many under the pretext of ensuring opportunity. In 2009, Boylan promoted T.I.D.E.S (or, Targeted Intervention for Developmental Education Students), a model specifically intended to acceler- ate as many students into college-level courses by taking a more comprehen- sive view than is typical of entering students by collecting multiple measures to triangulate best fit for program enrollment and students’ cognitive, affec- tive, and personal characteristics, a manner of predictive modeling that is gaining traction in the higher education’s growing culture of evidence; iden- tifying and matching services and programs (on- and off-campus, which are identified through a community-wide environmental resource scan) to stu- dent needs; and intensively advising and monitoring students throughout their experience (high touch).65 Boylan pointed out that two of the biggest obstacles to implementing T.I.D.E.S. are the human and financial resources needed and the typical inability of advisors and counselors to mandate and monitor prescribed student usage of resources as an alternative to traditional developmental coursework. In 2012, Boylan co-delivered a preconference institute at the NADE conference with Amy Trawick entitled Exploring Campus and Community Partnerships for Student Transition and Success, again emphasizing a “contin- uum of partnerships”66 between developmental education activities at com- munity colleges and other programs housed at the institutions and in their 150 COMMUNITY COLLEGES AND THE ACCESS EFFECT surrounding communities. Boylan and Trawick promoted several successful alternatives to traditional developmental education offerings—acceleration, concurrent enrollment, vocational education, and AEL, for example—and emphasized how ideally developmental education professionals in comple- mentary programs should be much more engaged with their peers in work- force development, non-credit basic skills programs such as AEL, and other community education programs, for example. Finally, Boylan encouraged community college educators to think much more creatively and about how to best meet the needs of adult learners in their community, wisely advising: “The cheapest form of innovation is a change in your own attitude.”67

Adult Education and Literacy Declining state and federal investment largely account for the lack of growth in the promising direction of AEL offered through community colleges. When recently approached by developmental educators at a large, multi- campus system about expanding adult education offerings to every campus in the system, the system’s chancellor acknowledged the community edu- cational benefits of housing more AEL at the college, but urged caution in pursuing the contract so that the community college didn’t assume respon- sibility for what she predicted may become “an unfunded mandate.”68 Almost 700,000 Michigan adults do not possess a high school diploma or GED, a reality that was not as painfully evident or consequential when auto manufacturing and similar industrial jobs were abundant. State AEL activi- ties were funded in the early 2000s at around $80 million annually; only ten years later, funding had been cut to $22 million, and enrollment halved to a low of just over 28,000.69 Data from the 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy show more than 93 million adults in America have economic- and career-limiting basic skills deficiencies, but that AEL only serves about 2 million adults annually nationwide.70 The implication is that many low-skilled students whose educa- tional needs would likely be better served in an AEL setting are enrolling in the FSA-eligible developmental curriculum out of financial necessity and lack of quality options. Title II federal funds (from 1998’s AEFLA), one of states’ most significant sources to fund AEL activities and meted out through WIA, have declined 17 percent (after inflation adjustments) over the past decade. Owing to decreased funding nationwide, between 2009 and 2010, at least 160,000 interested AEL students were on waiting lists confirmed to exist in 50 of 51 states/territories surveyed. State funding, historically dependable for a state: federal funding ratio of $3.50:$1, has dropped significantly,71 because state funds tied to sales tax and income tax revenues, as well as taxes generated by property values, have all declined since the Great Recession. In 2010, Arizona eliminated its entire $4.5 million state AEL budget; Oklahoma did much the same in 2012 when all $2.3 million local AEL funds were slashed, a budget decision that canceled out another $2.3 million in matching federal funds.72 Some states, such as Florida, Washington, and Oregon, have PROVIDING MEANINGFUL POSTSECONDARY OPTIONS 151 decided to pass along costs to individual AEL users, and eight other states are allowing fees to be charged.73 Inadequate funding for AEL to match the growth of those who would benefit from such services, state and federal policy threatens to increase racial and financial inequity in America. More funding would be generated and available for programs like AEL, and less demand would exist, if secondary and postsecondary students were much more productive to begin with.

Workforce Development and Training Every state in the union, plus Puerto Rico, received some of the $500 mil- lion in TAACCCT funds awarded in 2011 to community colleges around the country to train and place dislocated, underemployed, unemployed, low- skilled, and/or low-income adults in high-demand fields connected to local employment needs. Round Two TAACCCT funds totaling $500 million were again distributed in 2012 to each state and Puerto Rico.74 The avail- ability of these training funds are a bright spot in an otherwise depressing community college funding landscape, and demonstrate federal commitment to and investment in using the nation’s network of community colleges to revive America’s economy through education and workforce training. Still, there are limitations placed on how those funds can be used, who can access the training, and there was wide variation in how funding was doled out, which means not all citizens will benefit from equal access to training funds through their local community college. Federal funds for retraining workers outside TAACCCT have been heavily depleted. A recent New York Times article reported that Seattle was only able to provide training for less than 5 percent of those who sought it through the region’s workforce training centers, and that out of the 23,500 Dallas adults in early 2012 who lost jobs, enough annual funding still remained in April that year to assist only 43 people. WIA funds, historically used to train dislocated workers, fell 18 percent in 2012 in adjusted dollars com- pared with 2006 funding levels.75 Compounding the problem, programs in high-demand fields associated with higher pay, like those in the sciences, engineering, and health care, have suffered due to higher education divest- ment, in part because specialized program and safety equipment make those programs more costly to operate. So, as the New York Times headline cau- tioned, Where the Jobs Are, the Training May Not Be.76 The trend of defunding public postsecondary education activities— including state higher education institutions, like community colleges and flagship universities—continues, and presents a real dilemma for community college administrators who feel caught between knowing alternative settings like AEL would likely be a more appropriate place for some current commu- nity college students and the reality that there is currently not enough public funding to enroll students in alternatives if community colleges denied FSA to unqualified students. Since credit enrollments are currently backed by funding from much more secure sources (state/community college funding 152 COMMUNITY COLLEGES AND THE ACCESS EFFECT agreements, grants and loans that cover tuition, etc.), many community col- lege administrators, it seems, are content to favor laissez faire open access, even when data show some students have very little chance of succeeding as defined by exiting the developmental sequence, enrolling in college-level courses and succeeding in those courses, to make sure community members are not entirely denied postsecondary education. While some will be quick to accuse community administrators of pad- ding their coffers by encouraging inadvisable enrollees into developmental coursework, it is valid to consider that many genuinely feel as Breneman and Haarlow argued in their 1998 report on the costs of remediation “it is arguably the lesser of several undesirable outcomes,”77 who added that “compared to other options such as dead end jobs, unemployment, welfare, and or criminal activity, together with the social costs that accompany these paths, remediation is surely a good investment.”78 However, for Breneman and Haarlow’s assessment to be true, demonstrable benefits from the devel- opmental education enrollment must flow to all students in developmental coursework, and completion data show that is far from the case.

Continuing Education Community college leaders must accept that because their institutions are an exceedingly attractive postsecondary education option for low-income students and those with low academic skills, they have an exceedingly important responsibility to serve those students in the best ways possible to yield maximum success for the individuals and society as a whole, even if that means serving them differently than they would have been served at the institution in the past, because community college have never before enrolled a student body with a wider range of skills, abilities, and interests than they do now. To insist that credit enrollment is the only or most meaningful option for all currently enrolling students is to ignore vol- umes of data and exemplary programs that show many students in these two populations experience greater success in alternative programs than they do in traditional developmental education courses. Most, if not all, community colleges have non-credit, continuing education programs in place to serve, in a low-cost manner, students who do not qualify for the FSA-eligible curriculum. In fact, many community colleges are beginning to utilize continuing education more as a viable option for developing stu- dents’ basic skills outside the FSA structure of low-skilled students, and viewing those non-traditional offerings as critically related to the mission of postsecondary completion.

Partnering with Existing Community Organizations Every community has postsecondary education, training and employment organizations and resources that could be valuable supplements or alterna- tives to students for whom community college enrollment is not the best PROVIDING MEANINGFUL POSTSECONDARY OPTIONS 153 solution alone. This message was the focus of Boylan and Trawick’s pre- conference institute, Exploring Campus and Community Partnerships for Student Transition and Success, where they provided attendees with a model resource sheet from Boone, North Carolina, home to their Appalachian State University, that listed all possible local community resources that students with developmental education needs might benefit from.79 Typically being the most popular postsecondary destination in the com- munity for local high school graduates, community colleges could improve their service by functioning even more as a community hub by brokering relationships/agreements with community partners that might better serve some student populations that arrive first at the community college. For example, partnering with organizations in the community that exist to serve persons with ID may yield better outcomes for some students with ID who enroll in unsupported developmental education, for example, without those connections. Partnering community organizations could collaboratively provide ser- vices and augment community college students’ non-credit, postsecondary experience. Community colleges could collaborate with other agencies and increase community success by providing exit counseling for students who need to learn about their postsecondary options at the institution besides credit coursework enrollment, as well as any other appropriate options that exist beyond the college’s operations. Students would more likely benefit from personalized exit counseling/transition planning and from learning about and getting connected with alternative services, resources, and com- munity programs than from enrolling and leaving.

Postsecondary Options for Students with ID Parents and other advocates for students with ID often seek community college enrollment because they either do not know of better postsecondary education alternatives or do not have or take the time to research the specif- ics of existing alternatives that may be profitable. One reason students with ID seek enrollment through the front door of community colleges, instead of looking into community programs that might better help them develop to their potential, is because community college enrollment is often com- paratively easier, less expensive, and in many cases paid for (and then some) with FSA funds. A counselor working with students with disabilities recently shared with one of the authors that working on multiple campuses provided her an insight that many more students with ID were enrolling at the inner-city campus than the suburban campus. She attributed this not to a greater population of students with ID residing in the city, but rather to the more affluent and well-educated suburban parents being both more informed about other post- secondary choices in the community for their sons and daughters and having the ability to pay for those settings not easily covered by federal funds easily accessed at the community college in the form of FSA. In other words, the 154 COMMUNITY COLLEGES AND THE ACCESS EFFECT colleague was suggesting the college was being used as a convenient, inex- pensive adult daycare by families of students with ID without more attractive and affordable options. On a listserv for postsecondary options for students with ID that one of the authors belongs to, a recent post appeared that illus- trates the postsecondary transition experience parents go through when they have a child with an ID. A parent reached out to get help with funding for a CPTP, providing insight into how difficult it can be to secure funding for expensive, special programs outside the traditional FSA process for students enrolled in traditional college programs: “I am looking for ideas on ways to finance a (CPTP) for my son. I need help with creative thinking!”80 Few students enrolling in traditional community college courses would need to make such a plea.

Proactively Serving Students with Disabilities Finland, interestingly, has an extremely well-developed covey of prevoca- tional programs aimed at four specific groups of citizens who either do not elect to enroll in or do not qualify for the general upper secondary path: (1) post-basic education students who need more time in a structured envi- ronment to investigate options before formally entering a VET program; (2) immigrants who prepare for successful VET entry by receiving language lessons, information about different VET opportunities, information about Finnish education and work cultures, and even support for retention of their native culture and language; (3) those interested in sharpening home eco- nomics skills; and (4) persons with disabilities.81 The Rehabilitative Instruction and Guidance for the Disabled prevo- cational program option allows students to enroll in 20–120 credits. For individuals who are preparing for future enrollment in the selective upper secondary vocational studies program, a 20–40 credit experience is typical. However, “when completion of a vocational qualification is too demand- ing an objective and the aim . . . is to prepare participants directly for work and independent living,”82 programs of 40–120 credits are more common. Instead of allowing students with cognitive disabilities that kept them from succeeding in a traditional secondary school curriculum to enroll in even more demanding and abstract higher education experiences, Finland pro- actively created a postsecondary education transition program tailored to better meet the special work and independent living needs for citizens with disabilities unlikely to complete even a low-level vocational credential. Rather than ignoring the obviously different postsecondary needs of these citizens, Finland chooses to ethically and proactively address them. Similar to the IEP approach in the United States, studies in this program for Finnish students with disabilities “are composed based on his/her individual educa- tion plan, which starts from individual goals, needs and competence.”83 While students in this program can receive education alongside students without disabilities at the vocational institutions attended by students without dis- abilities, partially inclusive and separate programs exist as well. “Vocational PROVIDING MEANINGFUL POSTSECONDARY OPTIONS 155 special education institutions and a few VET providers assigned a special edu- cational mission are responsible for providing education and training for stu- dents with the most severe disabilities.”84 Dr. Temple Grandin, one of Time magazine’s 100 Most Influential People in the World in 2010 and a Professor of Animal Science at Colorado State University, delivered the opening keynote address at the 37th Annual NADE conference in Denver, Colorado, where the conference theme was, appro- priately, Pioneering the Education Frontier. Grandin also happens to be the most world-renowned person with autism. Famous for her groundbreak- ing work as a livestock equipment and facility designer, Grandin regaled the audience of developmental educators with stories of her time spent growing up on a ranch and shared that today, in her estimation, there are “too many people graduating without work experience and it’s atrocious.”85 Lost in the romantic notion that every student should enroll in college is the fact that many students with disabilities who do not succeed in that environment have marketable talents and skills that are not properly culti- vated because those students do not fit the prescribed mold of a traditional college student. Grandin impressed upon her audience that, “We need to be working on what a person can do! . . . Too often we pound at deficits. We need to build on strengths,”86 an asset model also promoted in Debraha Watson’s chapter on serving diverse students in the 2009 AACC publica- tion Reinventing the Open Door: Transformational Strategies for Community Colleges. Grandin was specifically addressing the failure to capitalize on the often brilliant skill sets of high-functioning persons with autism (those who previously may have been given the diagnostic label of Asperger Syndrome) because they may have outstanding weaknesses in some academic areas and/ or deficits in appropriate social behavior. For the sake of all American youth, Grandin particularly mourned the marginalization of practical, industrial arts from today’s high school experi- ence, stating, “We’ve taken the skilled trades out of high schools. I think that’s been an absolute disaster.”87 Grandin pointed out that 4-H, industrial arts, and home economics serve as the playgrounds on which all students can develop the critical thinking and applied problem-solving abilities lacking in so many graduates these days, noting of the modern high school student’s experience, “Everything’s abstract.”88 One of Grandin’s suggestions to com- munity colleges looking to improve student success was to take into consid- eration the needs of students with disabilities that make it unlikely for them to thrive in a typical college setting without more than the typical support provided by the office for students with disabilities. Grandin suggested that, for starters, an intensive, detailed advising/counseling intake process is criti- cal to thoroughly ascertain a student’s strengths and deficits. In her words, “You’ve got to figure out what their thing is!”89 Especially for students with ID who are highly unlikely to earn a two- or four-year college degree, assessing strengths and weaknesses against the employment landscape would encourage career planning discussions about the possible internships, apprenticeships, volunteer work, networking, 156 COMMUNITY COLLEGES AND THE ACCESS EFFECT education, and employment training, for example, that would likely be highly beneficial. Grandin’s advice to community college educators was for them to courageously take a much broader view of secondary and postsecondary education and training and to be open to approaches that would better serve students unlikely to earn a traditional college degree. Grandin pointed out that too many students with disabilities are given a pass by parents, educa- tors, and society in general and not allowed, encouraged, or required to work and gain the valuable experience and marketable skills that would serve them well in non-traditional postsecondary experiences.

Capitalizing on Ability National Public Radio recently covered the unique nonPareil Institute of Plano, Texas, a nonprofit software company/training program created specifically to prepare postsecondary students on the autism spectrum for meaningful careers in the digital world. Dan Selec and Gary Moore, two fathers, with computer software and science degrees, who also have sons with autism, cofounded nonPareil in 2009 after the shared realization that while both sons thrived in technology environments, they were unlikely to fare well in traditional higher education settings. Without access to better postsecondary education options for their sons that would prepare them for employment, Selec and Moore created a non-profit organization to fill the void. Moore described his son as a technological whiz who at the same time lacks the ability to dress himself on his own.90 NonPareil is among a growing number of organizations finding creative ways to connect high-functioning persons with autism to training for gainful, rewarding employment and cer- tain employers are beginning to demand workers with autism. Jim Pierce, vice president of corporate administration at Alliance Data, for example, looks to hire persons who are labeled with ID but also possess rare, highly coveted capabilities and other valued work habits generally not seen in the non-disabled population that make these workers exceptionally good hires. A study recently found that children with autism, for example, per- ceive motion two times faster than their peers. One of the study’s co-authors described autism not so much as brain impairment but a cognitive imbal- ance that often manifests as the coexistence of both strong deficits and truly remarkable abilities in one person.91 Ron Brix, a successful computer systems developer with autism, agreed, “My understanding of autism is a person has both great gifts and deficits. My whole career was based on skills that came as a result of, not despite, my autism.”92 Jim Pierce shared that the productivity of one such advantaged employee was far greater and his error rate far lower than those of his peers without cognitive disabilities.93 SAP, a large German software company, is another employer that “sees a potential competitive advantage to leveraging the unique talents of people with autism, while also helping them to secure meaningful employment,”94 a philosophical shift in hiring that SAP commit- ted to when it observed a productivity leap during a pilot project in India. PROVIDING MEANINGFUL POSTSECONDARY OPTIONS 157

Dedicated to serving students with “significant intellectual disabilities and developmental disabilities,”95 Project SEARCH is a unique employment- focused high school transition program that operates nationally, and is man- aged from Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center. Project SEARCH is a postsecondary education alternative superior to enrollment in a decontex- tualized, traditional college setting unconnected to a workplace setting. In Project SEARCH, “The sole definition of a successful outcome is competitive employment in an integrated setting.”96 Acceptable employment outcomes for Project SEARCH interns/students include at least 20 hours/week, year- round, at minimum wage or higher. Typically, interns spend six hours a day in their last year of secondary school on a job site with guidance from job coaches and special education instructors, an experience that is usually funded by braiding vocational rehabilitation funds, supported employment funds, and funds from the school district the student is still eligible to attend. Established Project SEARCH programs exist in 34 states, with some states boasting multiple sites, and Project SEARCH even has a presence in Canada and the United Kingdom.97 Many Project SEARCH sites, keeping with the founding site in Cincinnati, are medical facilities, but not all. Executive vice president and chief human resource officer of Fifth Third Bank, Teresa Tanner, reveals how workplace transition programs for students with per- vasive disabilities truly can advantage businesses, as well, “When businesses identify the strengths of employees with disabilities, then put them in jobs that match their skills, those employees turn out to be faithful, low-turnover, hard-working employees.”98 Employers are beginning to take more notice of how uniquely qualified persons with disabilities are for certain jobs and how extraordinarily committed they typically are to their work.

Service Learning Community college service learning programs represent perhaps one of the most fertile frontiers for students with ID and other disabilities who wish to transition to a postsecondary education setting and/or increase connections to gainful employment. In 2005, fourteen community colleges received four-year grants from the Corporation for National and Community Service as part of their Engaging Persons with Disabilities program, to participate in the AACC initiative Project Reach: Service Inclusion for Community College Students. Specifically, Project Reach worked with students in developmental education coursework, as well as students who were veterans with disabilities. At community colleges that require students to demonstrate an ability to benefit from the curriculum before being allowed to enroll, service learning connected with appropriate continuing education or, for example, CPTPs for students with ID or other similar programs, could both present a wonderful way to engage and serve students who do not qualify for the lowest available developmental education courses yet who seek a postsecondary experience in an inclusive community college setting. Not surprisingly, Project Reach observed about its participants this all-too-rare benefit: “(L)ong accustomed 158 COMMUNITY COLLEGES AND THE ACCESS EFFECT to relying on various service providers, this opportunity to serve others was new. Their ability to assist others in ways that made a difference to their com- munities was eye-opening.”99 Additional successes reported from Project Reach participants were “increased self-awareness, self-confidence, and pride in their contributions to their college or community.”100 In their 2012 National Call to Action, the National Task Force on Civic Learning and Democratic Engagement explained that their work—a publi- cation of the Association of American Colleges and Universities and funded at least in part by the U.S. Department of Education—was an effort to “complement our society’s strong commitment to increased college-going and completion with an equally strong and multi-front effort to ensure that postsecondary study contributes significantly to college students’ prepara- tion as informed, engaged, and globally knowledgeable citizens.”101 Are these citizenship ideals any less applicable to or important to maintain for students with intellectual disabilities? The task force called for Five Essential Actions and every one speaks funda- mentally to the inclusion of postsecondary citizens with disabilities: infusing “all sectors of higher education”102 with the “fundamental civic and demo- cratic mission;”103 promoting “civic aims and civic literacy as educational priorities;”104 creating a globally aware citizenry “that includes . . . capacities to engage diverse perspectives and people, and commitment to collective civic problem solving;”105 fostering from K-16 “progressively higher levels of civic knowledge, skills, examined values, and action as expectations for every student;”106 and growing partnerships “to address common problems, empower people to act, strengthen communities and nation, and generate new frontiers of knowledge.”107 Service learning as a postsecondary option would confer a number of advantages on transitioning students ineligible for the FSA-eligible curricu- lum, especially if employment is a primary transition goal for enrolling in the community college setting. Through service learning, students should encounter a wide variety of service settings to choose from, which would afford them great choice and control, and allow them to test potential work- place settings they would not likely have access to otherwise, to see if the line of work they chose to do service in appeals to them. Two young men with ID in their early-to-mid-twenties collect the recy- cled paper at one author’s campus as part of a supported work program. One day, the author greeted Justin (a pseudonym), the young man responsible for her area when he entered her office, as usual, and asked him how his day was going. The typically cheerful young man surprised her by growling, “This sucks! How would you like to walk around picking up other people’s paper every day?” Taken off guard by Justin’s raw frustration, the author did her best to help him consider the positive aspects of his job—namely, that he had one, that it was paid employment, and that he got to visit with a lot of people throughout the day who genuinely enjoyed seeing him. Still, as he left her office perhaps only slightly less dejected, the author wondered how much choice or control Justin had been allowed to exercise in taking this job to PROVIDING MEANINGFUL POSTSECONDARY OPTIONS 159 begin with, how much prior exposure he’d had to it before choosing it and, if he had been allowed to make his own decision to take the job or not. A postsecondary transition experience with a robust service learning and employment component may have allowed Justin to explore more potential areas of employment interest instead of perhaps being told what pre-planned transition employment awaited him after his high school setting. One author has observed many of her former students with ID, who failed to succeed in developmental coursework, gainfully employed in a variety of settings in the community. For example, some are successfully holding jobs in daycare, restaurants, movie theaters, and retail stores. Service learning opportunities may or may not work well in all settings, but enrolling unsupported stu- dents with ID in developmental education settings is not what serves them or the community best. The point is that many students with ID are capable of performing jobs more demanding (and interesting!) than recycling other people’s refuse day after day. And if they are interested in doing so, service learning programs at community colleges function—importantly, with sup- port from and in partnership with the entities overseeing participating stu- dents’ postsecondary transition—to assist those students in making critical connections with potential employers. Erin (a pseudonym) first volunteered for a service learning project while enrolled in one of the author’s developmental English classes, which she did not pass. She worked with about 15 classmates one Saturday repainting an inner-city daycare that served low-income families. As the author painted next to Erin that day, she learned how much Erin really wanted a career working with children, and served as a character reference for the first paying job Erin took in a daycare. The author was ecstatic to discover several years later while picking her children up after school one day that Erin had remained in the field and moved up on her own to a better-paying job in the school district’s after-care program for elementary children. Erin does not possess the intellec- tual ability to earn an associate’s degree, something that was never her parents’ goal when they enrolled Erin at the community college after high school any- way. She is currently employed in her dream job without a college degree. While service learning participation didn’t directly lead to employment in Erin’s case, it is not difficult to see how service learning participation could assist other students like Erin try out a variety of potential work settings and positively network with potential employers by allowing them to observe their work habits, skills, and abilities for a period of time. Service learn- ing settings may provide arguably better exposure for many students whose résumés might not have even landed them a traditional interview, during which—if it had been granted—many might have been quickly dismissed.

Inclusion on Campus Well-established postsecondary programs delivered on college campuses spe- cifically for students with ID are far from sources of shame, a reason quietly expressed by some institutions that, despite recognizing community need, 160 COMMUNITY COLLEGES AND THE ACCESS EFFECT hesitate to develop such programs. Quite the opposite, these successful pro- grams are celebrated in their communities. Lewis and Clark Community College, in Godfrey, Illinois, boasts a comprehensive array of services and award-winning programs that together allow citizens of virtually all ability levels to engage in postsecondary education on a gorgeous college campus with limestone buildings and architectural detail that reveals its origin as the former Monticello College for women, founded in 1838. One unique pro- gram is College for Life, a non-credit program for students who experienced few, if any, inclusive educational experiences in K-12. College for Life allows students with ID to engage in lifelong learning by requiring a self-advocacy course, as well as by providing a range of high-interest choices from drama, digital photography, and video making to social studies, literature/storytelling, and science, for example.108 On the day one of the authors made a site visit with a colleague, some College for Life students were engaged in a variety of art projects while oth- ers were busy creating PowerPoint presentations with digital photos they had taken earlier. College for Life students usually spend between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m. on campus two days a week engaged in fulfilling learning activi- ties and important social time with postsecondary peers for about $400 to $600 per semester. When the author asked Kathy Haberer, director of Student Development and Counseling and supervisor of College for Life, how long the students typically enrolled in the program, she broke into a wide smile and said, “It’s college for life,”109 before adding that the average time students spend in the program is 5–6 years. Haberer shared that contrary to common perception, participants like those in College for Life do not drain money away from the college. Additionally, she remarked in a news article covering the programs, “(I)nstead of taking away from campus life, these students enhance our culture. They are part of our community.”110 While sharing with Haberer the context in which the author intended to use a quotation from the 2011 site visit, Haberer granted permission and made a very modest request in return: “It would be nice if you could also say something about (how) everyone benefits from lifelong learning, including persons with intellectual disabilities.”111 Students with ID are not the only persons with disabilities who experience much higher than average unemployment rate, but they are among the great- est in number. So, it stands to reason that employment information and strat- egies useful with this group of students might also assist students with other kinds of disabilities who may not establish the ability to benefit required by some community colleges in the future. Richard Luecking, citing the dismal rates of gainful employment experienced by students with disabilities, empha- sized the importance of employment as a goal for students with ID and not just college and community access. Luecking defines work-based experience as “any opportunity for students to come in contact with the workplace and employers,”112 and includes in a list of possible work-based experiences for students with ID career exploration, job shadowing, volunteer work, service learning, internships, apprenticeships, and paid employment. PROVIDING MEANINGFUL POSTSECONDARY OPTIONS 161

Comprehensive Transition and Postsecondary Programs for Students with ID August 14, 2008, marked the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act of 1965, known as the Higher Education Opportunity Act (HEOA). Finally, the emphasis on postsecondary opportunities by advocates of students with ID influenced program development and financial aid provisions found in 2008 HEOA. For the first time, HEOA made FSA funds available to students with ID to pursue a “comprehensive transition and postsecond- ary program,”113 defined as a degree, certificate, or non-degree program at institutions of higher education. HEOA partly defines a student with an ID as one “with mental retardation or a cognitive impairment, characterized by significant limitations in . . . intellectual and cognitive functioning”114 and who is or was previously eligible for a free and appropriate education under IDEA. In addition to HEOA providing assistance for academic, career, and tech- nical pursuits in preparation for compensated employment, those with ID also may receive support to seek “independent living instruction.”115 A stu- dent with ID does not have to be enrolled in a degree or certificate program or have an earned high school diploma or the equivalent to be awarded FSA for application to a CPTP, a very important distinction for students awarded FSA for the purpose of enrolling in college degree or certificate program.116 Outside of HEOA 2008’s FSA eligibility for students with ID enrolled in CPTPs, “a student is never permitted to receive funds for training or for coursework prior to the completion of high school,”117 except in the case where a transcript demonstrates “the student has excelled in high school”118 and the student is enrolling in “a program that leads at least to an associate’s degree or its equivalent.”119 Grants were also authorized by HEOA for the development of high quality “model comprehensive transition and postsecondary programs for students with disabilities.”120 Institutions receiving grants are required to extend four curricular/experiential areas of participation to the students with ID they serve: “(A) academic enrichment; (B) socialization; (C) independent living skills, including self-advocacy skills; and (D) integrated work experiences and career skills that lead to gainful employment,”121 clearly demonstrating federal commitment to the expansion of meaningful and appropriate oppor- tunities for students with ID to participate in higher education settings. In addition to serving students with ID and attending to the aforementioned programmatic requirements, institutions receiving HEOA grants are obli- gated to provide for “social inclusion of students with intellectual disabilities in academic courses,”122 besides integrating students in virtually every other area of the institution. In 2010, twenty-seven TPSID (Transition and Postsecondary Programs for Students with Intellectual Disabilities) programs in twenty-three states received a total of $10.9 million in grant funding to create or improve compre- hensive transition and postsecondary programs for students with intellectual 162 COMMUNITY COLLEGES AND THE ACCESS EFFECT disabilities.123 Of the twenty-seven programs, only four were affiliated with community colleges. The other 23 were offered through highly respected state flagship universities, like University of Arizona, UCLA, Indiana University, and University of Iowa.124 The Institute for Community Inclusion at the University of Massachusetts Boston received another grant to establish the National Coordinating Center to support and evaluate the funded TPSID programs. These FSA-eligible programs—while currently small in number and therefore geographically difficult to access for too few Americans inter- ested in such postsecondary educational options—are available for some stu- dents with ID. Over 200 college programs exist for students with ID, and they vary in a number of ways. FSA funds cannot be applied to programs that do not qualify as CPTPs for students with ID. At the time of this writing, ThinkCollege! reported only 205 college programs in existence for students with ID (seven states and the District of Columbia have no such registered programs), and only 14 programs in 9 states certified as FSA-eligible CPTPs since the 2008 HEOA authoriza- tion of federal funds to support postsecondary participation by students with ID in such programs.125 With the geographic and federal financial aid access afforded by the 1,100+ network of the nation’s open door commu- nity colleges, it is easy to see why students with ID are drawn to enroll in FSA-eligible coursework at community colleges and not the limited number of CPTPs that exist. In the authors’ state of Missouri, for example, only three postsecondary programs exist that are specifically for students with ID, all are at universities, and none at the time of this writing are FSA- eligible CPTPs. Besides others, added benefits more commonly extended to students with ID attending community colleges as opposed to CPTPs in a four-year setting are decidedly lower cost and the ability to continue living at home and accessing their lifelong support system of family and friends. A scripture commonly cross-referenced with Matthew 13:12, the bible verse referenced earlier about the rich getting richer and poor getting poorer, is this familiar verse in Luke from The Parable of the Faithful Servant, which reads “For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required; and to whom much has been committed of him they will ask the more.”126 In the words of one interpreter of the parable, “(The faith- ful servant’s) responsibility is to safeguard what has been entrusted to their care.”127 One need not subscribe to Christianity, however, to appreciate the secular equivalent of noblesse oblige, that society’s most powerful are endowed with great responsibility to protect our less powerful and less able citizens. One of the most logical and historically successful settings in which to serve postsecondary students with ID is the community college, but community colleges must commit to serving them well. Enrolling students in intensive developmental coursework who did not attempt a core curriculum in high school represents neither opportunity nor good stewardship. Every community college should discuss developing an FSA-eligible CPTP, and/or develop an affordable, fee-based program of meaningful postsecondary transition experiences for students with ID, like Lewis and PROVIDING MEANINGFUL POSTSECONDARY OPTIONS 163

Clark’s College for Life. Local businesses and foundations, as well as a com- munity college’s foundation, may be promising scholarship sources to offset the cost for students in financial need enrolled in FSA-ineligible experiences. Families with postsecondary-age children with ID have typically endured a lifetime of extraordinary financial burden other families have not; society needs to be more aware and actively supportive of these families. Providing exceptional postsecondary programming in every community is part of the solution; making it affordable is equally important, and CPTPs accomplish both. Community college leaders should strive to be the servant leaders in their communities that we see in Lewis and Clark president Dale Chapman’s example: “At Lewis and Clark, we take the access mission seriously. All of our students deserve access to the tools, instruction and resources they need to become successful. (Our) programs meet students with . . . intellectual disabil- ities where they are and move them toward fuller, more satisfying lives.”128 This page intentionally left blank Chapter 11

The Equity/Excellence Enrosque

The Lumina Foundation’s guiding star for activity—its “Big Goal”—is that by 2025 at least 60 percent of Americans will possess high-quality postsec- ondary credentials with labor market value. The main reason the 60 percent mark has been adopted by most organized completion initiatives is that many other countries are approaching that percentage, and reaching that postsec- ondary credential saturation point would meaningfully improve America’s global competitiveness.1 Countries like Canada, South Korea, and Japan, for example—all of which are poised to achieve 60 percent college degree attainment rates by 2020—have been doing a much better job credentialing their citizens than has America.2 And, while the highest-achieving American students perform as well as their highest-achieving peers around the world, America’s aggregate achievement continues to descend in international r ankings.3 Unfortunately, if the degree change rate of 37.9 percent in 2008 for Americans aged 25–64 to 38.3 percent in 2010 remains steady, by 2025 less than 47 percent of Americans will hold two- or four-year degrees, far short of the projected 60 percent needed to fill the higher-paying American jobs that will require postsecondary education and/or training.4 By 2011, the rate had only crept up to 38.7 percent, a gain of less than 1 percent in three years.5 A recent article opened with this dramatic, yet not fantastical, hook: “The community college is being asked to save America.”6 In that article, ardent equity advocate Kay McClenney shared her assessment that “Community colleges are going to have to make some tough choices. We can no longer afford to do everything for everyone all the time.”7 McClenney emphasized in a separate interview the need for “Colleges all over the country . . . to have serious conversations about their mission,”8 adding that “It may mean think- ing about who we are going to serve and who we say no to.”9 The American community college has long and proudly claimed its place in higher education is at the nexus of access and excellence. Those electing to work at our nation’s community colleges take particular pride in their higher education institution’s commitment to serving students that more selective higher education institutions exclude by design. Community colleges are the higher education embodiment of egalitarianism; they are the people’s 166 COMMUNITY COLLEGES AND THE ACCESS EFFECT colleges. Many feel open access is the community college’s most meaningful contribution to American society. But, as James Traub concluded about one of the nation’s first open access experiments at City College in late 1960s Harlem: “The right to an education for which one was hopelessly unprepared was not much of a right at all.”10 The community college’s claim to excellence has come under increasing fire from critics recently, who—pointing out that less than 50 percent of entering community college students who want to earn a degree or certificate either earn one, transfer to a four-year institution or are still enrolled six years later11—would use any term but excellent. At a historic time of federal fiscal stress and in desperate need of effi- ciently and significantly raising Americans’ academic achievement, produc- tivity, and employability, the American community college’s extraordinary commitment to open access has perhaps never before been more tested as concerns grow about the public’s return on higher education investment. Prince and Choitz confirmed that, “Now more than ever, state and federal policymakers are challenged to use precious public tax dollars wisely.”12 Their report particularly emphasized the dire need for federal funding to at least be maintained and ideally increased for programs like the Pell Grant and WIA activities because that support is dedicated to supporting low-income students and under-employed or unemployed adults. Schneider and Yin co-authored The Hidden Costs of Community Colleges report in 2011, which determined that $3 billion dollars of state and local government funds between 2004 and 2009 were invested in community college students who did not return for a second year. The federal govern- ment pumped $660 million in grants and other kinds of financial support into drop-outs, bringing the estimated loss over five years to just under $4 billion, figures that only took into account first-time, full-time, degree- or certificate-seeking students counted in federal statistics.13 The attrition rates of part-time students are known to be significantly higher than that of full-time students, and 59 percent of community college students enroll part-time.14 Because of community colleges’ low tuition and geographic accessibility, in addition to other attractive features, more low-income stu- dents and ethnic minorities attend these institutions of higher education at much higher rates than others.15 Schneider and Yin pointed out that “part of the appeal (of community colleges) is their perceived low price to students. However . . . something that seems so inexpensive can in fact be very costly, once we take into account the low levels of student success.”16

Enrollment Mismatch and Funding Fallout Traub famously wrote in City on a Hill: Testing the American Dream at City College, a chronicling of the 1969 lowering of admissions standards moti- vated by the pursuit of equity, “Open admissions was one of those funda- mental questions about which, finally, you had to make an almost existential choice. Realism said: It doesn’t work. Idealism said: It must.”17 The achieve- ment gap observable at all levels of education between low-income students THE EQUITY/EXCELLENCE ENROSQUE 167 and their wealthier peers is of great concern, because of the chasm’s size and because the greatest population growth is occurring and is projected long into the future to occur in ethnic and racial minority groups, whose mem- bers also are disproportionately low-income. For many sound reasons, the low-cost, ubiquitous community college is being called upon arguably more than any other higher education institution to credential more Americans and improve postsecondary and social outcomes for low-income and minor- ity populations. And to explain why higher education efforts to achieve societal equity through policy and strategy were ineffective, historians will look back on the turn of this century and point to the combination of open access, FSA awarded against regulations, and advising practice that enrolled far more community college students on traditional degree paths than were capable of completion. At first blush, the strategy of enrolling every interested postsecondary student in a college degree program may appear aligned with the goal of increasing completion. However, multiple realities erode the sagacity of this approach and reveal how overenrolling low-income students beyond their financial and/or academic abilities actually perpetuates inequity. Besides being far from every student’s best interest, it also reveals a faulty predilec- tion in thought that a college degree is the only postsecondary credential or experience worth pursuing. Time and again, students show up to the com- munity college with serious financial impingements and complex lives that put them at high risk for not completing any credential, yet they are forever advised into decontextualized basic skills experiences aimed at lengthy gen- eral transfer experience they inevitably leave prematurely (or never enroll in) and fail to earn any quality credential or certificate with labor market value. Ample research positively correlates level of education with income, employability, lifetime earnings, and general quality of life,18 so it is tempting to believe it is better for students to have tried and failed in a degree program than never to have tried at all. But, the flaws in the logic that with essentially failing to consider aptitude, preparation, financial means and other impor- tant factors all interested students should be encouraged or even allowed to pursue a traditional four-year degree show through upon scrutiny. The low-skilled and/or low-income student, who tries college for one semester, accrues debt in the thousands, and fails, is worse off than had he or she enrolled in a valuable, short-term, career-oriented educational experience, for example, and succeeded. Also, and equally important, this degree-or-bust approach assumes that enrolling students unlikely to persist and succeed in the FSA-eligible curriculum diverts no vitally important resources away from financially fragile students who are able to complete a program of study. In fact, resources unjustifiably poured into risky enrollments highly unlikely to succeed siphon support away from other more profitable settings and low- income students likely to complete who would greatly benefit from addi- tional financial support. A more admirable postsecondary completion strategy entails treating com- munity college students differently upon arrival—particularly when students 168 COMMUNITY COLLEGES AND THE ACCESS EFFECT enroll with distinctly different levels of preparation, aptitude, financial stabil- ity, and life circumstances. In 2003, Cohen and Brawer accurately predicted that in the community college’s near future “pressure to sort students at entry will increase . . . revealing the persistence of a trend toward regulations demanding that the colleges guide students into programs consonant with their abilities.”19 But, is all tracking inadvisable? Tracking in a most severe form—permanently assigning students to one pathway, for example—is unacceptable. Jo-Carol Fabianke, associate vice chancellor for academic part- nerships and initiatives in the Alamo Community College District, offered a fresh perspective, saying, “We have always thought if someone comes in here, we ought to try to get them to a four-year degree, . . . (but) that is not real- istic for everybody.” Fabianke added, “Not all tracking is bad. . . . Tracking based on solid evaluation of the student’s academic performance and inter- ests can be good.”20 And as Craig Hadden wisely pointed out, “Mandatory placement may actually provide the key to opening the door to true aca- demic, vocational, or community success despite the criticisms by some that it excludes students and restricts their freedoms.”21

“College For All!” Reduces Overall Success It is expected that critics would equate an approach that would more fre- quently advise low-income and/or low-skilled students into career-focused and non-traditional postsecondary pathways with what George W. Bush famously termed “the soft bigotry of low expectations”22 while he was push- ing for the universally higher education standards in K-12 that led to the eventual passage of No Child Left Behind.23 Chris Asch, though, had the audacity to point out what should be obvious to anyone associated with the curriculum offered in traditional higher education settings: Not every student should pursue a traditional postsecondary educational experience, a philosophy he knew would “incite the wrath of the ‘achievement police,’ the legions of self-appointed guardians of high expectations.”24 But Asch questioned the wisdom of channeling all students into traditional postsec- ondary experiences, effectively calling the “one-size-fits-all approach”25 a woefully inappropriate response to the breadth of students now enrolling in our nation’s higher education institutions. Asch described the ambivalent feelings advisors of high school gradu- ates must experience in this way: “We have so effectively pushed the notion that ‘success equals college’ that other options, such as vocational education, seem horribly limiting and even discriminatory.”26 Asch further suggested that the prospect of advising others into non-traditional settings is difficult for advisors and policymakers to consider because they themselves typically hold baccalaureate and often advanced college degrees, from which they have benefited myriad ways. Out of guilt, lack of awareness of meaningful options, or a combination thereof, however, students who enter a commu- nity college expressing an interest in credit-bearing, college-bound courses are rarely advised or required to consider other options at the institution THE EQUITY/EXCELLENCE ENROSQUE 169 or in the greater community, even as two-year technical and occupational degree holders in the right employment fields earn thousands more than many four-year degree holders,27 and some 29 million American jobs—one- fifth of all jobs—require less than a Bachelor’s degree and instead career or technical training.28

Unrecoverable Resources and the Significantly Underprepared One of the most painfully honest accounts of the daily struggles that occur in open-door community college developmental classrooms across the country is Bob Blaisdell’s 2013 Essay on Teaching a Student Who May Never Pass.29 Blaisdell, who was teaching at City University of New York’s Kingsborough Community College, tells the tale of his experience with one student, Mike, who was taking the course Blaisdell was teaching for the fourth time. Blaisdell ruminated: “(Mike) is proud of his persistence. This rare quality, which I aspire to and always admire in others, is finally the quality that con- vinces me Mike’s hopes for educational progress are hopeless.”30 Even with that certainty, Blaisdell’s humanity gets the better of him during the exit counseling session over Mike’s failed writing portfolio, “I realize he is doing all he can in order not to cry. I am his executioner and in the absence of his voice I am the one babbling. I encourage him!”31 A colleague of one of the authors laid bare the angst that led him to accomplish a policy change at his community college requiring students to demonstrate an ability to benefit before being allowed to enroll in the credit- bearing developmental curriculum: “Seeing them over and over (in the lowest developmental classes)—and knowing they’ll never make it—just kills me.”32 The community college will likely remain in perpetuity the most accessed postsecondary setting by low-skilled students looking to improve their lot in life. Rosenbaum, Deil-Amen, and Person explained why: “Hearing that the labor market punishes individuals who do not attend college, many students enter . . . who might not have done so otherwise,”33 which makes it that much more important that students who are capable of college-level work are pre- pared for it before enrolling and that those who are not prepared or cannot achieve an adequate level of preparation are presented with postsecondary options that lead to maximum success. That America must achieve greater productivity with public education dollars is not debatable. Implying that the approach of maintaining the same postsecondary goals for all students is unwise and a guarantees failure, Rosenbaum, Deil-Amen, and Person characterized John Dewey’s words from the opening page of his 1900 publication The School and Society: “What the best and wisest par- ent wants for his own child, that must the community want for all of its children,” 34 as an “appealing ideal” before adding that it “ignores the reality of social context.”35 In fairness to the Father of Modern Education, though, Dewey ideologically aligned with Rosenbaum, Deil-Amen, and Person and did not advocate for society to maintain the same educational goals and 170 COMMUNITY COLLEGES AND THE ACCESS EFFECT outcomes for all students. Interpreted out of context, Dewey’s quote can easily be and is frequently mistaken as rebuke of elitist values and policies that would place lower expectations on society’s less-advantaged children and artificially suppress their academic achievement. In full context, though, it can be seen that Dewey was actually making the rather straightforward and far less philosophical point that all American schoolchildren should be afforded a public education of equally high quality. Dewey was warning that unequal access to quality public education would inevitably enhance soci- etal stratification and rip apart America’s democracy. Dewey argued that charitable and wise communities ensure that all children, without exception, receive a high-quality education, on par with what the best and wisest par- ents work to secure for their children. Quite the opposite of suggesting all students meet the same educational outcomes, in the same paragraph Dewey specifically addressed the impor- tance of “individualism”36 in America, writing the following about the criti- cal role America’s public schools play in achieving society’s destiny by helping each student reach his or her personal potential: “Only by being true to the full growth of all the individuals who make it up can society by any chance be true to itself.”37 He was advocating for equitable distribution of public education resources so that society could reap the benefits of each child being availed of a high-quality education. In truth, Dewey would judge the expectation of all students to achieve the same outcomes to be the height of inequality, and consider that value to poorly serve the development of each student’s unique gifts and abilities and ultimately shortchange society as a whole. In their text addressing community college access, completion impedi- ments, and solutions, Dewey, Rosenbaum, Deil-Amen, and Person’s raised thought-provoking questions that John Dewey would also ask:

Yes, we should all want the possibility of limitless opportunity for our citizens, but at whose expense? Does our idealism sometimes blind us to the reality that those most in need and most likely to fail in their attempt at a college education are, in some sense, victims of that idealism? . . . Is the possibility of opportunity enough, or should we consider ways to offer more effective, albeit possibly less idealistic, pathways to success?38

Jeff Selingo echoed that philosophical stance in a recent Chronicle of Higher Education article “On Students’ Paths to College, Some Detours are Desirable” when he wrote that “Getting students who start college to even- tually finish is a noble goal. But we focus too much time, effort, and money on pushing students through a narrow, simplistic view of higher education.”39 He referred to college as a “convenient, if expensive warehouse,” and under- scored that too many students are “poorly matched with the colleges they attend.”40 Sadly, sometimes even when community college advisors sense they should advise students in directions other than traditional credit-bearing course enrollment, many find they are disallowed to do so because their THE EQUITY/EXCELLENCE ENROSQUE 171 institution’s particular brand of open access and/or entrenched enrollment practice forbids them. In 2009’s Reinventing the Open Door, Gunder Myran rhetorically asked, “What is an equitable community college?” and emphati- cally answered, “It is not one that treats all students equally, but rather one that provides each student and constituency with the unique services that will empower them to achieve their full potential.”41 Agreed. Reality continues to remind us that for a variety of reasons students will never attain the same kinds and levels of academic accomplishment. No Child Left Behind in K-12 is most wisely interpreted as an idealistic guiding light and not literally as a student performance imperative. For all of American public education—and particularly at community colleges—a more virtuous rallying cry would be Every American Served Extraordinarily Well. The coun- try would be wise to ignore the unobtainable goal of educational sameness and, instead, focus on assisting each citizen in achieving his or her greatest personal potential, as Dewey so wisely counseled over 100 years ago. To do that, much greater productivity will need to be achieved by students in the K-12 setting to ensure that all who are capable of being college-ready upon high school graduation are prepared for successful enrollment. Far fewer unprepared high school graduates will exist than today, and postsecondary alternatives for those who need postsecondary paths other than traditional degree programs can be developed and better maintained. Ironically, greater social equity and societal advancement will be achieved when traditional college degrees cease being perceived as the only rewarding postsecondary experiences, and when all students are better matched with postsecondary experiences that reasonably take into account factors that will significantly impact their ability to complete a program being considered.

The Sacrifice of Excellence When massive resources are committed to failed efforts, the opportunity cost is not just to the student who failed and missed a chance to succeed elsewhere; resources invested in one failed experience or an unsuccessful attempt are then unavailable for the support of proven, programs and students in desperate need of funding. Community colleges and higher education, in general, are not the only battlefields in education where overall achievement is weakened by the practice of dispersing resources in a policy environment overcommitted to access and insufficiently dedicated to outcomes. K-12 gifted and talented programs, for example, are being defunded nationwide.42 The landing web- page for the federal Jacob K. Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education Program—a nearly quarter-century-old federal program with specific aims to reduce achievement gaps by supporting gifted and talented students with lim- ited English proficiency and/or disabilities attending school in low-income areas that do not have local ability to provide enrichment—may as well have a “Closed for Business” banner splashed across it. Under What’s New? this sad rejoinder: “Congress has not provided funding for this program. No new competitions will be held.”43 172 COMMUNITY COLLEGES AND THE ACCESS EFFECT

Joseph Renzulli, director of the National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented at the University of Connecticut, grieved the 2011 reduction in federal funding, focusing not on the loss of benefits to individual partici- pants but the wider societal benefits that result from supporting these excep- tional students: “If you think about the role that these young people play in our culture, they’re the job creators, industry creators.”44 Veteran Gifted and Talented teacher Nancy Harris concurred, saying that when it comes to students who follow or lead, “More often than not, my experience with gifted students is that they’re the ones who pave the way.”45 Renzulli cited the nation’s equity agenda as one reason for the gifted and talented fund- ing reduction: “Whenever you have limited resources, there are going to be people arguing about where they should go.”46 Renzulli acknowledged that most people would make the investment argument for the underachieving, not the overachieving. Kati Haycock, president of The Education Trust, whose organization’s mission statement emphasizes a commitment to promoting “high academic achievement for all students at all levels”47 and also to closing the achieve- ment and opportunity gap for low-income and minority students, agreed that educational resources of all kinds are too often allocated counterpro- ductively. After carefully emphasizing how very important attending to the educational needs of the lowest-performing American students is, Haycock rightly assessed in a 2013 Ed Trust report that, “We will . . . never close the achievement gaps . . . if we focus only on bringing the bottom students up . . . .If we are going to get these gaps behind us . . . we have to bring our middle-achieving low-income students and students of color higher, and move our higher-end students higher still.”48 The highest achievement of every American student matters, and the painful truth is that fully funding the enrollment of low-performing students in environments where they do not experience success means those resources are unavailable to capable, low- income students, which will perpetuate the inequity many are so committed to eliminating. Renzulli conceded that persons leaning toward an excellence agenda and away from orchestrated equity may be perceived by some as un-American, discriminatory, elitist, or even racist. Yet, he believes it is this very brand of thinking that depresses achievement, saying, “Far greater efforts should be made to help (gifted) students—especially those in lower-income b rackets— who are capable of the highest echelon of learning.”49 Rob Dorman, father of a five-year-old Illinois kindergartner, Gus, a very young member of Mensa, wanted to continue enrolling his son in the Collinsville School District, but found that while massive resources were available to support students in the district with IEPs who have special learning needs, inadequate educational resources are earmarked for gifted and talented students like Gus. Dorman argued that just like students with disabilities, Gus has unique learning needs—only, unlike his peers with disabilities, his special learning needs go unmet. According to a Collinsville district administrator, excruciatingly scarce fiscal resources in Illinois coffers “prohibit(ed) the district from THE EQUITY/EXCELLENCE ENROSQUE 173 providing specialized services for gifted students. In its recent budget pro- posal, the Illinois State Board of Education cut all funding for gifted student programs.”50 Honors Students Suffer was the recent headline of the campus newspa- per at one of the author’s institutions.51 Only four out of the nine honors courses initially offered survived the cut in Fall 2012 when an institution- wide enrollment minimum was also applied to these special sections.52 Never mind that the honors program naturally draws enrollment from a select pool of outstanding and devoted students and offers a diversity of course topics in order to constitute a meaningful program. More motivated and intellectu- ally capable students are choosing the community colleges, overwhelmingly due to financial reasons, with college officials reporting that, “the Great Recession changed how upper-income families thing about paying for col- lege. It left them averse to debt and wary of paying full price.”53 If cash-flush students are increasingly choosing to enroll at community colleges, it is a safe bet that those institutions will continue to attract more honors-level students from this socioeconomic group, as well as exceptional students from low-income populations, of course. Yet, these important com- munity college programs are among the first to lose support in budget throes, having their place—their worth—in the academy questioned, when these are exactly the programs community colleges need to celebrate, grow, and assist secondary students in adopting enrollment in them as a personal goal. Community college honors classrooms could be and should be teeming with enrollment; instead, developmental rosters overflow. A lot of coulda-been honors students flounder in costly developmental experiences—not because they were misplaced, but because they failed to dedicate themselves early enough in their prep careers to developing their academic skills and abilities with great intention and discipline.

The Case in Connecticut As previously mentioned, Connecticut passed SB 40 in 2012, which includes a provision that by Fall 2014 students enrolled in state public higher edu- cation institutions but deemed not ready to benefit from entry-level (or college) courses may be offered “a maximum of one semester of remedial support that is not embedded.”54 For Connecticut’s lowest-skilled students who do not qualify for the support-embedded, college-level courses, the bill limits traditional developmental education to a one-semester experience without requiring students to demonstrate any ability to benefit from that experience before enrolling. While completion increases may result for the higher-skilled students who can develop their basic skills through embedded instruction in college-level courses, research and experience suggest that the lowest-skilled students in the embedded instruction group will fail and/or performance standards will be lowered.55 Just after SB 40 passed, a Connecticut community college professor reached out on a professional listserv to which one of the authors belongs 174 COMMUNITY COLLEGES AND THE ACCESS EFFECT in a desperate search for successful one-semester developmental math pro- grams or curriculum that would prepare developmental students for College Algebra. Of course, no one-semester math experience could begin to quickly prepare the lowest-skilled students currently enrolling in our nation’s com- munity colleges for success in a college-level math course, even with the embedded support Connecticut’s plan calls for. One of the author’s col- leagues reacted to Connecticut’s plan: “Sixteen weeks? I couldn’t get some of my students college-ready in sixteen years!”56 Connecticut’s legislation not only keeps the doors open at the state’s community colleges, but also installs a floor to the college-level curriculum by remanding the lowest- skilled students to a one-semester remediation experience that realistically will prepare few to succeed in college-level courses. Taking this inevitability into consideration, one could argue that Connecticut legislators made a conscious decision to advance equity by committing resources to students more prepared and more likely to persist to a credential of labor market value. Connecticut’s approach also clearly communicates to the lowest- skilled students that they should consider other postsecondary plans and instructs future students that they should arrive prepared or also investigate other postsecondary plans. SB 40 passed in part because legislators keyed in on two February 2012 reports issued by the CCRC that suggested as many as one-third of stu- dents enrolled in developmental coursework could pass college-level intro- ductory courses with “Bs” or better. After the bill’s passage, three CCRC officials, including director Thomas Bailey, promptly penned an article in the Connecticut-based newspaper, The Hartford Courant, renouncing the use of their research to support such draconian reform, saying about Connecticut’s one-semester, non-embedded approach for the lowest-skilled students that it is “far from clear . . . that one semester of instruction is ade- quate to prepare students with very weak skills for a college level course” and pronouncing the bill “too inflexible.”57 Connecticut’s developmen- tal education reform bill was legislatively driven by two committees—the Committee for Higher Education and the Employment Advancement Committee—and apparently not in partnership with Connecticut’s com- munity college faculty and administrators, which led CCRC officials to colorfully assert that Connecticut’s legislators may now be “waging a battle without the soldiers to fight it.”58 Connecticut politicians perhaps did, however, what the community col- leges would not (and perhaps believed they should not or could not), which was to more closely effect the spirit of existing FSA regulations by legislating a performance standard on the curriculum. Many have labeled Connecticut’s one-semester experience for the lowest-skilled students, the ranks of which will no doubt be more heavily populated by low-income and/or minority students, an unconscionable assault on equity. The bill’s long-term net effect, though, will be to advance equity by reserving public funds for those stu- dents more likely to complete a credential of worth and, most importantly, to spur much-needed secondary student engagement and achievement. THE EQUITY/EXCELLENCE ENROSQUE 175

In 2010, only eight certificates of completion were awarded in the state of Connecticut to students in the category of mental retardation. However, 177 students in that same category received a standard high school diploma, accounting for 96 percent of the exit credentials awarded to secondary stu- dents in the category of mental retardation. Of those regular high school diplomas, 134 were granted to students over the age of 18 (22 diplomas to nineteen-year-olds, 91 to twenty-year-olds, and 21 to twenty-one-year- olds).59 Placing into Connecticut community colleges’ one-semester devel- opmental education experience, advertised as an intensive ramping-up for college course enrollment, will be some students with ID who were previ- ously enrolled in substantially modified core high school courses. At one author’s institution, developmental reading faculty agreed that the effect of instituting a college-level course reading requirement at their open access institution not only achieved the desired effect of shoring up the integrity of 100+-level courses, but also concentrated the lowest-skilled students— including those with ID—in the lowest-level developmental courses, which negatively affected student success in those experiences.60 The same will happen in Connecticut’s one-semester, non-embedded experience: capable, but low-skilled, students will be co-enrolled with stu- dents whose unique postsecondary education needs should ideally be met in different postsecondary experiences with different goals. Co-enrolling these two very different groups of students in the one-semester experience will muddy the data, and trying to accurately gauge program efficacy will be extremely difficult. Many Connecticut students who go on to fail the non- embedded experience will no doubt hold postsecondary goals that would be better addressed and achieved through non-credit programs at the commu- nity college and/or other existing programs in the community. Hopefully, Connecticut community colleges plan to actively inform those who do not pass the one-semester experience about other beneficial programs at the community colleges that may more appropriately address their postsecond- ary training and education needs, as well as provide referrals to a comprehen- sive network of community partners that can do the same. Incidentally, it would be in the community colleges’ financial interest to thoughtfully partner with existing community organizations to develop and deliver these other options on campus, specifically for students who do not experience success on the credit side of the college and are not allowed to continue their credit enrollment. An offering of low-cost and free continu- ing education and workforce training options can and should be made avail- able on the community college campuses. And if an assessment mechanism in Connecticut does not already exist by which students who failed the one- semester experience can qualify again for it or the embedded college-level courses by demonstrating proficiency in the future, ATB tests can serve the purpose when they are reinstated. Finally, to more appropriately serve stu- dents with ID, CPTPs and/or other postsecondary alternatives discussed in the last chapter for this student group should be established at Connecticut community colleges. 176 COMMUNITY COLLEGES AND THE ACCESS EFFECT

Mismatch and the Community College In The American Community College, Cohen and Brawer dedicate an entire chapter to the social role of the community college, chastening community college advocates for either not knowing “how to examine their own institu- tions critically” or being “disinclined to do so. (Advocates) say the colleges strive to meet everyone’s educational needs,” the authors continued, “but they rarely acknowledge the patent illogic of that premise.”61 In their book, Cohen and Brawer review literature that labels the community college an instrument of capitalists to maintain social inequity and class structure. The authors accuse community college critics of committing the cardinal sin of “(attempting) to shift the meaning of educational equality from individual to group mobility,”62 emphasizing that though community colleges contribute greatly to democratizing college access for all groups, “when that concept is converted to group mobility, its meaning changes, and it is put beyond the reach of the schools.”63 One of the most useful observations about the importance of maintaining standards at the community college to encour- age social mobility comes from Joseph Ben-David, who noted that, “Higher education can make a real contribution to social justice only by effectively educating properly prepared, able, and motivated individuals from all classes and groups. . . . It cannot ensure the equal distribution of educational success among classes.”64 Much has changed since 2003 when Cohen and Brawer noted the absence of public challenge to the community college by noting that if the public were to become disenchanted with the community college “it will be dif- ficult to tell whether the reaction is directed against the institution itself or toward the image that its advocates have fostered and the claims they have made.”65 Community college activities have never been more scrutinized, and Cohen and Brawer were right: It is impossible to tell whether modern critics are assailing the community college itself or calling into question the veracity of its cheerleaders’ claims of equity enhancement. While express- ing deep appreciation for open access, Cohen and Brawer indicate that the policy is at odds with the completion agenda and pursuit of equity: “Those who deplore the colleges’ failure to overturn inequities between classes do a disservice to their main function and tend to confuse the people who have looked on them as the main point of access to, exit from, and reentry to higher education—the lungs of the system.”66 They added that, “If the com- munity colleges succeed in moving even a slightly greater proportion of their clients forward toward what the dominant society regards as achievement, it is as though they changed the world. They are engaged with people on the cusp, people who could enter the mainstream or fall back into a cycle of poverty and welfare.”67 In the pursuit of opportunity, the Michaels, Moniques, and Breannas of the world knock most frequently (and frantically) on the doors of the nation’s community colleges. They arrive with a dire need to improve their financial security yesterday, yet are repeatedly advised onto two- and four-year degree THE EQUITY/EXCELLENCE ENROSQUE 177 pathways with no financial reprieve in the foreseeable future. Others arrive with postsecondary educational needs and goals that cannot be addressed and met, respectively, by embarking on a pathway leading to a traditional col- lege degree. The American community college can greatly improve societal outcomes by promoting excellence in two important ways: through enacting policy that promotes greater secondary student engagement and maximizes college-readiness; and through ensuring all community college students are better matched to programs that reasonably take into account both their enrollment goals and their capability to complete any program in which they are allowed to enroll. America’s ability to thrive in the twenty-first-century depends greatly on the collective success of its citizens, and many more postsecondary victories need to be claimed so that each citizen, and our nation as a whole, is prepared for the inevitable challenges on the horizon. Now is the time for Americans to reengage and enthusiastically prepare for those challenges; anything less will diminish our power to control our own destiny and positively impact the rest of the world. This page intentionally left blank Chapter 12

The Impact of Global Competition

“I can never explain the wonder of this experience. I am a different person who sees the world through new eyes.”1 Boku is from Mongolia, and he participated in an ESL program for one semester at an American community college. His statement reveals the power of his international experience and how much he valued the time he spent living and learning in the United States. In an interview with one of the authors, Boku went on to articulate how much American higher education is valued in his home country, how all his classmates vied for the rare opportunity to attend an American col- lege. Traditionally, the United States has been the destination of choice for students seeking to study outside their home country. In fact, during the 2007–2008 academic year, the United States captured 20 percent of the global educational market.2 The United Kingdom ranked second, attract- ing 13 percent; France 8 percent; and Germany, Australia, and China each 7 percent.3 As of 2005, 2.5 million students were pursuing higher education outside their home countries, a number estimated to increase to 8 million by 2025.4 Enrolling international students in American colleges and universities yields benefits not only for international students, but also for American students, higher education institutions, and the United States as a whole. The economic impact alone of international students studying in the United States amounts to $13.3 billion annually.5 Given the projected increase in the number of students studying outside their home countries, from purely an economic standpoint, it is therefore important that the United States maintain its world lead in enrolling postsecondary international students. However, what Boku, and millions of international students—both current and those hoping to study here—perhaps do not know or do not question is why other countries are increasingly outpacing the United States in terms of college completion. The National Commission on Excellence in A Nation at Risk warned the public that unless American academic achievement improved, “individuals in our society who (did) not possess the level of skills, literacy, and training essential to this new era (would) be effectively disenfranchised, not simply 180 COMMUNITY COLLEGES AND THE ACCESS EFFECT from the material rewards that accompany competent performance, but from the change to participate fully in our national life.”6 This dire prediction was based in part on a concern that while little progress was being made in improving student performance and graduation rates in the United States at the time, other nations were showing steady improvement in both areas and would soon surpass us. In 2000, McCabe predicted 80 percent of new jobs in the new millennium would require some kind of postsecondary education.7 Additionally, The Spellings Commission Report, formally entitled A Test of Leadership: Charting the Future of Higher Education, found that “ninety percent of the fastest-grow- ing jobs in the new information and service economy (would) require some postsecondary education.”8 In short, formal education beyond high school in the new millennium is no longer viewed as a socioeconomic accoutrement for those with the greatest reserves of intelligence and/or money, but by many as necessity for anyone who wishes to live comfortably in America. By the time the Spellings Commission, a panel of national experts assem- bled during the second Bush administration, issued A Test of Leadership in 2006, the United States had slipped internationally to twelfth in the per- centage of its population with a college degree, and to sixteenth in high school graduation rates.9 In successive national studies, experts warned that in an emerging global economy where work could easily be moved from one nation to another, as other countries with lower wage scales passed us by in educational attainment, jobs would inevitably move elsewhere in the world. The New Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce wrote in its 2007 report entitled Tough Choices or Tough Times:

If we continue on our current course, and the number of nations outpacing us in the education race continues to grow at its current rate, the American standard of living will steadily fall relative to those nations, rich and poor, that are doing a better job.10

It is in this climate that many policymakers are seeking ways to restore America’s preeminent position as the most admired education system in the world. Unfortunately, a confluence of factors has effectively forced or pushed many higher education sectors to adopt lower performance standards for students. Making it a more difficult decision to deny higher education admission is the irrefutable evidence that a college degree directly correlates with financial solvency, independence, and prosperity in America now more than ever before. And the ill-fated solution pertinent to this discussion about open admission is that if more students enroll, postsecondary completion and academic competence will rise in kind.

Competence vs. Completion At the 2012 Council of State Governments conference, CCA’s Michael Baumgartner was right to impress upon legislators that they were already THE IMPACT OF GLOBAL COMPETITION 181 funding something. Irrespective of which approaches are taken to improve completion, though, legislators must ensure they are funding quality; phony completion agenda gains on paper will only grow the current educational/ employment/economic crisis in America while clouding the true causes. Postsecondary credentials alone do not automatically secure higher paying jobs for holders. The value of postsecondary credentials comes from the mar- ket recognizing college degrees and other certifications and credentials as important proxies for the skills the holder possesses, which in turn qualify them for the higher-paying jobs legitimately requiring those skills. The completion agenda compromises its efforts with understandably blunt marketing that fails to convey important nuance—take the Lumina Foundation’s easily remem- bered “60% by 2025” goal, for example (and many other efforts communicate similar goals in similar terms). Policymakers hear the catchy calls for “60% in 2025,” perseverate on improving numbers alone, and too often overlook the reason the completion agenda has claimed the white-hot spotlight amidst so many other pressing national issues: Sixty percent of the American workforce is predicted to need valuable postsecondary credentials by 2025 to qualify for the kinds of quality jobs predicted to be available in this country. The effect of the blunt messaging can be seen in this unsupported con- clusion in an article on solving the college completion agenda: “Getting diplomas in the hands of more people would be a huge boost for the U.S. economy.”11 Not if those diplomas lack value in the employment market and not if the diplomas were awarded for meeting degraded standards in the acad- emy; individuals with flimsy credentials will suffer the many ills associated with accrued student debt and chronic employment woes and the country right along with them. Many audiences within and outside of the academy hear clamor for more postsecondary credential achievement, an inadequate substitute for the specific kinds of educational experiences and postsecond- ary credentials Americans need to qualify for the higher-paying employment predicted to be available in the future. Attainable, but low-demand, creden- tials, and certificates and diplomas without standards behind them will fail to prepare Americans for the jobs those diplomas are meant to qualify them for in a competitive employment market, which will only serve to undercut all well-intentioned completion agenda activity in the long run. Completion of a postsecondary credential automatically bestows neither global competi- tiveness nor competence. Stacie Nevadmonski Berdan, an author and speaker regarding interna- tional careers, recently blogged about the difference between competition and competence. Achieving global competitiveness, she argued, is not the same as achieving global competence. A product of American public educa- tion must be global competence for all students, not a desired qualifica- tion that only select graduates from even more selective institutions achieve. Berdan explained:

By the time today’s toddlers join the workforce, the ability to work glob- ally and cross-culturally will be mandatory—not just the “nice to have” it 182 COMMUNITY COLLEGES AND THE ACCESS EFFECT

was years ago . . . I’ve had many discussions with business leaders who demand a globally competent workforce – which they’re not finding in abundance in American graduates. So they’re looking elsewhere. In other words, good jobs in the U.S., with U.S.-owned companies, are going to foreign nationals because American graduates lack the needed skills.12

Berdan went on to state that this lag is not the students’ fault; it’s a con- sequence of the American educational system for inadequately preparing students to navigate and succeed in an increasing complex, global market.

The Basics Though American parents are better educated than most in other coun- tries—and parental level of education highly predicts children’s academic achievement—the United States still lags in international standings for achievement, indicating that other reasons explain why American students perform on average to a level grossly below what their parents’ education levels would predict. The Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) measures the performance of 15-year-old students in reading, math, and science literacy and is coordinated by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). The PISA has been administered every three years since 2000. In 2009, 60 countries participated, 34 of which are OECD member countries. The 2009 PISA results show that out of the 34 OECD countries US students ranked 14th in reading, 25th in mathe- matics, and 17th in science.13 Data from the 2012 PISA assessment illustrate that compared to those same 33 OECD countries, American students had dropped in the rankings in all three areas to 17th place in reading, 26th in math, and 21st in science.14 Students who achieve a Level 2 on the PISA reading sub-test have achieved what “can be considered a baseline level of proficiency, at which students begin to demonstrate the reading competencies that will enable them to par- ticipate effectively and productively in life.”15 Nearly 20 percent of American 15-year-olds did not achieve Level 2 in 2009 compared with 10 percent or less from Shanghai-China, Hong Kong-China, Canada, Finland, and Korea, among the highest academic performers by international standards.16 The 2009 share of American students scoring at highest PISA reading levels 5 or 6 (10%) is impressively higher than the 8 percent average among partici- pating OECD countries, but that victory loses its luster when compared to the Levels 5 and 6 rates of Shanghai-China at 19.5 percent, Singapore at 15.7 percent, and Japan 13.4 percent.17 Compared to the 2009 PISA results, in 2012 the United States did shrink its share of readers scoring below Level 2 from 20% down to just over 16%. However, its share of readers scoring at highest levels of 5 or 6 also dropped from 10% to 9% while the percentage of highest readers increased sharply in Shanghai-China’s (25.1%), Singapore (21.2%), and Japan (18.5%).18 After the PISA 2012 results were released, the consensus was that stagnation of American student performance over THE IMPACT OF GLOBAL COMPETITION 183 the past decade and continuous improvement on the part of other countries accounts for the comparative descent of the United States among OECD countries in achievement rankings. On average, American students are not viewed so much as in decline but rather as increasingly outperformed by their foreign peers, a phenomenon that extends beyond academic achievement and which Fareed Zakaria described as “the rise of the rest” in his 2008 text, The Post-American World.19 Comparative math and science assessment results, on the surface, appear to be promising as well. The Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) collects data from over 60 participating countries regarding mathematics and science achievement of fourth and eighth grad- ers. The average mathematics score of American fourth and eighth graders in 2011 was higher than the international TIMSS scale average and the United States was in the top 15 education systems for mathematics. A sampling of countries that outscored the United States? Singapore, Korea, China, Japan, Finland, and the Russian Federation. Data are similar for science, slightly more positive even. In 2011, the average science score for American fourth and eighth graders was also higher than the international TIMSS average. For fourth graders, the United States ranked in the top 10 list of coun- tries and for eighth graders, the top 23. Countries that outperformed the United States in science as per the TIMSS? Singapore, Korea, Japan, China, Finland, England—the same countries that outperformed the United States in mathematics TIMSS scores, and the same countries that outperformed American students in the three areas—reading, mathematics, and science— of the PISA assessment.20 The National Institute on Educational Governance, Finance, Policy- making, and Management published a policy brief analyzing the significance of TIMSS data for school improvement. The Institute came to several con- clusions suggesting that even though the TIMSS data, as presented above, appear to be positive, there is reason to worry. They found four important implications. First, American students start strong in science and math while in mid- dle school, but tumble toward the bottom by high school. Somewhere in the pipeline, students fall behind. Second, the rigor of math and science curriculum in the United States falls short compared with that of interna- tional counterparts. Middle school curriculum in the United States tends to focus on elementary math and introductory science concepts, whereas other outperforming countries focus on advanced algebra, physics, chemis- try, areas that many American students do not enroll in until high school. In sum, the typical K-12 experience in the United States does not require mastery and shallowly covers many topics. Third, in the United States, students are often taught process and asked to restate concepts and proce- dures; while in countries such as Japan and Germany, students are expected to “develop concepts and procedures . . . resulting in what experts describe as higher quality teaching in those countries than the United States.”21 Finally, math and science reform in the United States is attempted via 184 COMMUNITY COLLEGES AND THE ACCESS EFFECT top-down “indirect means” compared with that in Japan where teachers are given time to collaboratively work with colleagues on innovation and continuous improvement. American teachers instead are increasingly sub- ject to external accountability and increasing responsibility, resulting in decreased time or opportunity to analyze classrooms lessons and work with peer teachers for improvement. The PISA and TIMSS scores and rankings in and of themselves are not as important as what the data suggest about the importance of high expecta- tions and thoughtful US public education policy. These assessment results paint a bleak picture regarding American curriculum rigor and education policy compared with other countries—and this is, or should be, a powerful lesson for the United States. Nevertheless, controversy exists regarding such international comparison data, how the data are interpreted, and assump- tions made regarding American students’ performance based on these data—and rightfully so. Two attributes unique to the American system in comparison to some foreign competitors is that our population is one of vast demographic differences and we elect to educate all of our citizens. How do international assessments, such as the PISA and the TIMSS, accommodate for the impact on ranking of the heterogeneous US population when making comparisons to the study’s leading performing countries? In 2010, the Center for American Progress released a report titled The Competition That Really Matters: Comparing U.S., Chinese, and Indian Investments in the Next-Generation Workforce. A key finding was that the United States would rank number one internationally in reading if only stu- dents from America’s richest schools took the PISA assessments. Further, if only white students took the PISA reading assessment, the United States would rank third.22 Clearly, the socioeconomic and racial disparities that impact educational achievement in the United States impact such interna- tional assessments. Is it acceptable then to write off the PISA and TIMSS comparison data as invalid, flawed, or one that paints an inaccurate picture of the status of American education given that we elect to all of our citizens from every socioeconomic class? In Viewing Education in the United States through the Prism of PISA, the OECD reported that the proportion of US students from disadvantaged backgrounds is actually consistent with the average of OECD countries.

A comparison of the socio-economic background of the most disadvan- taged quarter of students puts the United States around the OECD average while the socio-economic background of the student population as a whole ranks clearly above the OECD average. In other words, while the overall socio-economic context of students in the United States is above that of a typical OECD country, the proportion of students from disadvantaged backgrounds is similar in the United States to that of OECD countries in general. The greater socio-economic variability in the United States thus does not result from a disproportional share of students from poor families, but rather from an above-average share of students from socio-economically advantaged backgrounds.23 THE IMPACT OF GLOBAL COMPETITION 185

A rather homogeneous country, Finland is often pointed to as an exam- ple of educational excellence. The country placed second in the 2009 read- ing and science literacy PISA rankings and first in Science. Pasi Sahlberg, Finish authority on educational reform and director of the Finnish Ministry of Education’s Center for International Mobility authored Finnish Lessons: What Can the World Learn from Educational Change in Finland? In his text, he addressed the differences of the Finnish educational system com- pared with those similar to the United States. The only standardized test in Finnish schools is the National Matriculation Exam, given at what is the US equivalent of the end of high school. Teachers create their own inter- nal assessments throughout students’ educational paths; assessment meth- ods learned during prestigious and rigorous teacher education programs. Additionally, it is the focus on competence over competition and comple- tion that drives excellence. “There are no lists of best schools or teachers in Finland. The main driver of educational policy is not competition between teachers and between schools, but cooperation.”24 Further, it is important to examine the educational reform story of the 1970s in Finland. The country realized that the only way to be globally competitive was to invest in the knowledge of its citizens; the knowledge- based economy held much more promise than manufacturing or the coun- try’s natural resources. During this time, equity drove reform, and so did the concept of every child deserving a good education in a healthy environment; one that focuses on “individualized student guidance” as the cornerstone for student success.25 Finland’s critics point to the country’s homogeneity to explain Finland’s educational achievements. However, Norway, demographically similar to Finland, adopted an American-style approach—frequent student testing, externally imposed accountability for teachers, etc. Norway ranked slightly higher than the United States in OECD’s PISA reading and mathematics scores, but below the United States in science, while Finland remains at the top in all areas. The suspect conclusion is that “Educational policy . . . is prob- ably more important to the success of a country’s school system than the nation’s size or ethnic makeup.”26

Necessary Global Skill Sets In the context of the global economy, the United States cannot afford to over-rely on manufacturing or natural resources. Like Finland, we must pre- pare ourselves for participation in a thriving knowledge-based economy. And due to an increasingly global economy, the OECD estimates the economic cost in America due to the international achievement gap will actually exceed that caused by the foreseen domestic qualified worker shortage, which the concerted national completion agenda effort is attempting to address. Growing international competition adds another element of pressure to America’s education systems—the necessity for those who do complete to achieve at higher levels and in disciplines that lead to jobs in high-demand 186 COMMUNITY COLLEGES AND THE ACCESS EFFECT fields. Today’s college graduates need to be proficient in a second language, comfortable working in multicultural environments, and familiar with the intricacies of a globally integrated economy. The STEM disciplines (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) are emerging as tomorrow’s areas of greatest career opportunity, yet students in the United States shun these majors while their international peers flock to them in increasing numbers. The National Math and Science Initiative seeks to increase student per- formance in STEM fields via teacher training, implementing rigorous AP courses in math and science in high schools, and by working with schools located on military bases to deliver rigorous math and science programs. The Initiative dubbed the shunning of STEM majors and fields in America the “The STEM Crisis,” citing only 45 percent of US high school gradu- ates as ready for college-level mathematics, and only 30 percent for college- level science. Preparation in math and science fields is even more dismal for minority groups—10 percent of black students and 9 percent of Hispanic students took advanced math (advanced Algebra or advanced Calculus) in high school, compared with 22 percent of white students.27 The numbers are also troublesome in college. Thirty-eight percent of students who declare a STEM do not graduate with one, and in 2008 only 4 percent of US bachelor degrees were awarded in engineering compared with 31 percent in China.28 And what about the impact of the “STEM Crisis” on workforce, and research and development? We know that a college degree is increasingly needed to meet the challenges and demands of an evolving workforce. In particular, the growth of STEM jobs will outpace non-STEM jobs—17 per- cent vs. 9.7 percent growth, respectively, and that “60% of the new jobs that will open in the 21st century will require skills possessed by only 20% of the current workforce.”29 In terms of research and development, the National Math and Science Initiative reveals that America is no longer the “Colossus of Science” that once produced the highest percent of scientific research papers in the world. In the early 1980s, US scholars produced 40 percent of scientific research papers. By 2009, the percentage had dropped to 29 percent. China’s share has rapidly increased during this time frame to encompass 11 percent of the world’s scientific research papers.30 To remain competitive in the global education race, higher education resources in the United States must be committed to asking more of those able to complete a rigorous curriculum, and not to nursing those who are seriously unprepared through several years of remedial work who then still may not be prepared for the demands of a STEM curriculum, let alone the demands of any college-level work. The dangers of a completion-only agenda, with insufficient regard to meaningful academic achievement, weigh heavily on STEM fields. In his 2011 State of the Union address, President Obama reiterated that now is the time to reinvent ourselves as a country, and the means to do so lies in advancements in science and technology. He then called for 100,000 new teachers in STEM fields. However, concentrating on increasing the number of students going into STEM fields, and subsequently increasing their completion rates, misses the mark. Lane Wallace, author and THE IMPACT OF GLOBAL COMPETITION 187 speaker, articulated the difference in her blog responding to Obama’s 2011 address, and the larger implication on all subject matters.

Fostering innovation . . . isn’t just a matter of the quantity of quality of math and science education. It’s a matter of restructuring how we approach and teach all our subjects, from the liberal arts to math, science and engineering. And it means focusing as much on teaching how to combine those fields of know- ledge and think in flexible, integrative, and creative ways . . . That focus flies in the face of subject-knowledge test scores as a gauge of educational excellence, of course. But that is the Sputnik-level challenge we face, if we really want our talent for innovation to match the increasingly complex, “sticky” problems we need to solve in the century to come.31

Increasing competency in STEM fields alone is not enough for American students to remain competitive in the global education race. As Wallace articulates, it’s about the larger issue of rethinking how we approach and evaluate teaching and learning in a more comprehensive, holistic manner. Another twenty-first-century skill identified as critical to succeeding in the global competition race and maintaining post–9/11 US security is foreign language proficiency. The benefits to foreign language instruction positively impact students in many ways, such as overall academic performance, intel- lectual development, enhancement of career opportunities, and cultural understanding.32 In a majority of developed countries, students are required to learn a foreign language at a young age; in China and Korea, students begin learning foreign language at eight, while children in other countries begin as early as five.33 American students often start learning a foreign language, if they do at all, well into the teen years—far later than advisable. Yet a more troublesome issue than lateness of instruction is that foreign language programs across the country are shrinking despite their increasing importance. State and local budgets channel resources away from foreign language instruction in favor of subject matters that they are held account- able for and tested on. Federal support of foreign language instruction is wavering, as well. In 2011, the Foreign Language Assistance Program (FLAP), the only federally funded program designated for foreign language instruction, was defunded by Congress, despite the knowledge that that foreign language is critical for functioning in a globally connected society. A year before FLAP was defunded, U.S. Secretary of State Arne Duncan correctly stated that, “To prosper economically and to improve relations with other countries . . . Americans need to read, speak, and understand other languages.”34 The same year FLAP was defunded, President Obama advised his Illinois audience in a town hall meeting:

Having a foreign language . . . makes you so much more employable because if you go to a company and they’re doing business in France or Belgium or Switzerland or Europe somewhere, and they find out you’ve got that language skill, that’s going to be important as well . . . we don’t emphasize that as much as we should here in the United States.35 188 COMMUNITY COLLEGES AND THE ACCESS EFFECT

More than the elimination of FLAP illustrates the country’s drift away from foreign language instruction. Between 1997 and 2008, the percentage of elementary schools offering a foreign language dipped from 31 percent to 25 percent, and during that same time frame, middle school foreign lan- guage declined from 75 percent to 58 percent.36 While high school offerings remained stagnant, 91 percent, the percentage of colleges and universities requiring a foreign language decreased as well. In 2010, 50 percent of col- leges and universities required foreign language courses for a bachelor’s degree compared to 67 percent in 1995.37 Foreign language instruction must become an integral component to a rigorous plan of study at all educational levels in US public education, and mastery viewed as important as student fluency in English and numeracy. The need is critical in a flat world, yet foreign language programs and partic- ipation in the United States are on the decline. Hurrying students through their educational pathway in the name of completion provides little time for necessary foreign language proficiency, let alone competency in any other field. Again, as the National Institute on Educational Governance, Finance, Policymaking, and Management stated, “The United States emphasizes breadth over depth, providing students with superficial exposure to many topics, but mastery of none,”38 which is one reason why other countries are outperforming the United States not only in science and math, but also in general competency to navigate, and be successful in, a global economy.

A Sense of Urgency A Nation at Risk launched three decades of intended wake-up calls for America, addressing the interrelated topics of education, workforce develop- ment, and global competitiveness, as much of the country hit the snooze button after each report release. Consider the urgency conveyed both by the subtitle of Friedman and Mandelbaum’s 2011 book How America Fell behind in the World It Invented and How We Can Come Back, and this excerpt from it as an indicator of the global pressures driving the higher education completion agenda:

. . . There is far too little observing, orienting, deciding and acting and far too much shouting, asserting, dividing, and postponing. When the world gets really fast, the speed with which a country can effectively observe, orient, decide, and act matters more than ever. . . . The urgency stems from the fact that as a country we do not have the resources or the time to waste that we had twenty years ago.39

Harvard University Professor of Business and author John Kotter has written and spoken extensively about instilling a sense of urgency to initiate change. Without urgency, Kotter wrote, significant change is not possible and, fur- ther, a sense of complacency can quickly become the enemy of change.40 Urgency is not to be confused with emergency, nor is it a call to reach specific THE IMPACT OF GLOBAL COMPETITION 189 goals by any means necessary. In Kotter’s words, “Urgent behavior is not driven by a belief that all is well, or that everything is a mess but instead that the world contains great opportunities and great hazards . . . a real sense of urgency is a highly positive and highly focused force.”41 Whether or not the U.S. performance in core subject areas has fallen or remains stagnant, or even has increased, is subject to debate depending upon which data are reviewed and how they are interpreted. Further, high school and college completion rates have not declined in the United States. In fact, research suggests high school graduation rates are increasing, even as rates for some student groups are still woefully unacceptable, as low as 25 percent in some states.42 What international comparison data do indicate, however, is that other countries are rapidly outpacing the United States in educational attainment and global competency skill sets (e.g., STEM). We can no longer be complacent with our educational system if we expect to compete, nor can we advocate for change based on a sense of emergency espoused by much of the current reform agenda, which in turn hastily shapes public policy. Understanding how U.S. educational achievement—not just degree attainment—compares with other countries, creating a sense of urgency to instigate change, modernizing American education and implementing a globally competitive curriculum, and personalizing learning for students with varying interests, needs, and abilities all are critical pieces to beginning to restore a culture of learning in America; a culture that values learning over degrees and genuine achievement over completion. This page intentionally left blank Chapter 13

Restoring America’s Culture of Learning

“Learning comes before completion.”1 That is Sanford “Sandy” Shugart’s simple, but profound, reminder to everyone connected with the comple- tion agenda. President of Valencia College in Florida, Shugart is one of the country’s most highly respected leaders in higher education. While his entire article, Rethinking the Completion Agenda, is worth reading by anyone inter- ested in genuinely improving community college student success, that last principle of eight elevates his voice of reason above much completion clatter. Shugart went on to correctly appraise that “the country has got the wrong working theory about completion,”2 and his perspective must be repeated until everyone who touches American higher education understands the substantial danger in emphasizing completion over learning. In the article, Shugart retraced the popularized line of completion thinking: “If more students graduate, then more will have learned, which means more stand to contribute to their communities and the economy.”3 To the surprise of no one familiar with his personal and professional com- mitment to genuine learning, Shugart, a true renaissance man, challenged this tired thinking and freshly framed completion as a natural by-product of learning:

The theory is subtly, but clearly incorrect. It should go like this: “If more students learned deeply and effectively . . . with a clearer sense of purpose in their studies and their lives, more would graduate and contribute to the local economy and community, and that would be a good thing.”4

Holding Students Responsible for Student Achievement Our nation’s driving educational goal should actually not be to get every high school graduate college- and/or career-ready—that’s the wrong emphasis, as well. Important as the outcome is, the goal of getting students college- and/ or career-ready places dangerously outsized responsibility on less instrumen- tal “others” (parents and educators) for what is principally the responsibility of each student in America. The primary responsibility of adults is to provide 192 COMMUNITY COLLEGES AND THE ACCESS EFFECT appropriately challenging educational experiences while helping students understand it is their job to work hard and develop into savvy, lifelong learn- ers. Dedicated and capable secondary students will easily achieve college- and/or career-readiness as a by-product of working to meet high standards within a challenging curriculum. Our nation’s primary goal should be to get every American student to focus on this one truth: Investing energy in your education is of the immense value—to you, your family, your community, your fellow Americans, and truly the rest of the world. President Obama sent a similar postsecondary completion message to a high school Class of 2012 during their graduation ceremony: “If you quit on school, you’re not just quitting on yourself, you’re quitting on your country.”5 If America’s cultural yardstick for patriotism became high commitment to lifelong learning—if citizens came to value learning over college-attending—then every single high school student who could be col- lege- and/or career-ready upon high school graduation would be more than prepared. Importantly, educators and policymakers would then both have a better sense of how to meet the postsecondary education needs of the stu- dents who truly were unable to get college- and/or career-ready in 13 years and just as important, resources would be freed to commit to alternatives that could best serve their needs. Completion is nothing more than a mastery milestone; therefore, comple- tion rates will naturally rise as more Americans come to appreciate their educational opportunities more and prize learning more highly than other competing interests. Consequently, only policies that produce sincere edu- cational gains are worth pursuing. Any that garner tenuous gains at the sac- rifice of learning lead us farther away from effective solutions and have the potential to irreversibly damage our nation’s future and collaterally dimin- ish peace, justice, and quality of life the world over. The titular dichotomy presented to the American people in 2007 by the New Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce was Tough Choices or Tough Times. Soon, we will not have the luxury of making the tough choices; tougher times are unmistakably headed our way as some while away precious time debat- ing the best ways to manufacture the appearance of postsecondary achieve- ment. Policy choices must be those that encourage the deep learning Shugart emphasized and not those that traded for superficial data gains American economic, political, and social well-being and global stability. In the third of New York Times columnist Tom Friedman’s trilogy focus- ing on the globalization of almost every aspect of public life, That Used to be Us, he and coauthor Michael Mandelbaum argued that four major challenges face us as a nation in the new century, adapting to globalization, adjust- ing to the explosion in information technology, coping with our mounting national debt, and managing rising energy consumption and accompanying climate change. They contend that unless we come together as Americans to address these challenges, we will cease to be the economic force and cultural/ political beacon that has distinguished us as a nation for the past two cen- turies. Central to two of these challenges—adapting to globalization and RESTORING AMERICA’S CULTURE OF LEARNING 193 adjusting to information technology—and implicit in the others, is the need to re-establish ourselves as a leader among nations with a highly educated citizenry. But, Friedman and Mandelbaum maintain this will not happen without first recognizing that a critical mass of Americans are in a state of complacency, devoid of an urge to pursue excellence. Absent a common will- ingness to sacrifice whatever is necessary to restore those cultural elements that made our country great, we will continue to decline as hungrier nations become “the new America.” It is well-documented that every generation of Americans has achieved more education than the previous generation, until now.6 Harvard econo- mist Claudia Goldin observed this about the importance of an educated citizenry: “The wealth of nations is no longer in resources. It’s no longer in physical capital. It’s in human capital.”7 Or as the writers of A Nation at Risk described as early as 1983, “Knowledge, learning, information, and skilled intelligence are the new raw materials of international commerce.”8 Unfortunately, at the very time America needs its greatest percentage of well-educated citizens to maintain or improve the nation’s global position by qualifying for the complex occupations America can command, the num- ber of capable workers falls far short. The only way to turn the tide is for America’s leaders and citizens to summarily reject philosophies and policies that court mediocrity (and worse!) and willingly embrace those that evoke high effort and lead to excellence. At a public policy forum subtitled The American Student v. The World, higher education panelist Kent Farnsworth traced America’s steady achieve- ment decline to the fact that Americans “developed a world-class curriculum in the 1960s and have sat on it ever since.”9 Cohen and Brawer similarly traced the decline of American student achievement to a number of fac- tors that began to interact in the mid-1960s with continued acceleration: increased television programming and viewing, “a breakdown in respect for authority and the professions, a pervasive attitude that the written word is not as important as it once was, the imposition of various other-than-academic expectations on the public school,” an increase in English language learn- ers, and “a decline in academic requirements and expectations at all levels of schooling.”10 A sign of the times and prophetic of twenty-first-century America, Richard Hofstadter was awarded the Pulitzer Prize in nonfiction for Anti-Intellectualism in American Life 50 years ago in 1964.11 Anticipating criticism that America could become too self-scrutinizing, he cautioned that “the possibility that a sound enterprise in self-correction may be overheard and misused is the poorest of reasons for suspending it.”12 Hofstadter fur- ther warned that “a pure and unalloyed dislike of intellect or intellectuals is uncommon,”13 implying the creep of a far more insidious brand of anti- intellectualism for its subtlety: garden variety apathy. Unfortunately, Americans’ zest for developing marketable skills and know- ledge continues to fall short of many of the world’s citizens we compete with for employment. Near the end of the panel that addressed the question of whether or not America is able to remain internationally competitive, Farnsworth 194 COMMUNITY COLLEGES AND THE ACCESS EFFECT offered this succinct, sobering assessment to a room full of community mem- bers, educators, and policymakers: “We’re failing in terms of motivating our students to do what is necessary (to compete in a global economy).”14 Arum and Roksa conveyed a similar sentiment by channeling Barbara Schneider and David Stevenson’s work in their 2011 text Academically Adrift and described college students as alternatively maintaining “very high educational expectations and professional ambitions . . . (while failing) to develop realis- tic understandings of the steps necessary to achieve their goals.”15 In other words, a sizable disconnect exists between students’ dreams and their abil- ity to identify and accomplish the objectives associated with turning those dreams into reality. President John F. Kennedy’s nephew Timothy Shriver recently described the disengagement yet another way when he observed that Americans “would still love to be the country of great ideals and achieve- ments, but no one seems willing to pay the price.”16 The 50-year Cold War, a fight for world prominence between the United States and former Soviet Union, was waged politically, technologically, and ideologically as opposed to indirect military conflict, hence the phrase “cold war,”17 coined by none other than George Orwell in his 1945 essay You and the Atomic Bomb. The race for supremacy and containment of commu- nism gripped America and fueled a nationalistic fervor around achievement and academic excellence. At the end of the Cold War, the defeated Soviet Union’s “chief Amerikanist,”18 or political advisor, Georgi Arbatov, chided the United States with this prescient, parting remark: “We are going to do something terrible to you. You will no longer have an enemy.”19 Farnsworth reminded his rapt audience, as well, that the fall of communism by the late 1980s “left us without a common enemy that kept us sharp,” and further advised that America’s contemporary competitors view the United States as being in decline because they don’t believe American citizens have the will to reform education in the way needed to remain globally competitive.20 In his January 2011 State of the Union address, President Obama drew on another Cold War reference to the space race in a desperate attempt to inspire the American people to shake off their malaise and prepare themselves to participate in the economy through their higher education, stressing: “This is our generation’s Sputnik moment.”21 Yet, no matter how acutely our nation’s attuned leaders perceive the dangerous precipice at which America stands at this time in history and how urgently many have tried over the past 30 years to communicate to the American people the increasingly strong link between education and employment and enjoyment, unexamined and entrenched policies, practices, and attitudes deflect those messages by absolving students of their responsi- bility to learn and develop into productive citizens. Cold War allusions may still be highly effective lapel-jerkers for some adults, but increasingly less so as more Baby Boomers—those with the greatest personal connection to the Cold War period and its impact on American values—retire and control fewer leadership positions. Cold War references have no immediacy for our nation’s youngest citizens and, therefore, no effect on them. RESTORING AMERICA’S CULTURE OF LEARNING 195

How, then, do we reach American youth in a similarly effective way and get them to clearly understand that their futures and America’s depend on their commitment in the present to developing into capable learners? Reference to a historical and political era inaccessible to this generation of schoolchildren falls flat and fails to inspire them to commit to the long, continuous process of becoming the scholars and productive citizens needed not just for the ben- efit of the United States but for the world. On average, Americans still enjoy among the highest standards of living in the world, but it is clear that if our values do not change, that will cease being so. How do we communicate this reality to every American youth and get them to enthusiastically embrace their vital role in America boasting the best-educated citizenry in the world? Unequivocal messaging in the home, at school, in the community, from leaders in society, and through policy and practice is needed to help American youth understand their instrumental role in our nation’s success, and that preparation for success begins early and lasts a lifetime. Waking up intellectually at 18 or later is not a recipe for success in twenty-first-century America. A colleague of the authors said much the same when he blamed chronic academic underachievement on the failure of responsible adults in every role—parents, teachers, coaches, administrators, legislators, and other policymakers—to communicate the serious implications of low academic engagement: “We need to help our children understand that their degree of effort and success in school going forward will largely determine their rewards or quality of life. And without hard work, some of their best oppor- tunities will be denied.”22 In the mid-1990s, Hillary Rodham Clinton properly assessed the situa- tion in her publication It Takes a Village, and because we have failed to be disciplined enough in policy and action to sufficiently improve our pursuit of learning, her words apply even more so today:

As a nation, we are at a crossroads in deciding not only what we expect from education, but what education can expect from us, individually and collec- tively. The degree of our commitment will determine whether we graduate to a new era of progress and prosperity or fail our children and ourselves. Like education itself, our decision involves something beyond pragmatism. It is also a test of our values.23

Ten Practical Policy Steps for Restoring America’s Culture of Learning 1. The regular high school diploma must only be awarded for meeting one minimum standard of achievement. Eliminate the multi-standard award system and restore integrity and value to that credential. 2. Local education agencies (LEAs) must be required to accurately tran- scribe academic achievement for every student, including those enrolled in modified curriculum, just as honors work is properly recorded for the benefit of third-party reviewers. 196 COMMUNITY COLLEGES AND THE ACCESS EFFECT

3. The letter and spirit of all Federal Student Aid (FSA) regulations must be observed. 4. FSA-eligibility regulations should be applied to all students wishing to enroll in the FSA-eligible curriculum. Before implementation, the first affected high school graduating class should be given enough notice to meet the standards. 5. The ATB provision must be reinstated to the FSA program and the list of federally-approved ATB tests must be expanded to expedite the establishment of FSA for the academically prepared without high school diplomas or the equivalent. 6. Some FSA funds recovered from enacting the first five policy steps should be directed back into the Pell program to increase the maximum award for eligible students. 7. Some recovered FSA should be used to expand underfunded adult edu- cation and literacy (AEL) programs and workforce training programs that specifically serve low-skilled adults ineligible for FSA. 8. Community college and other community organizations should partner more to meet divergent postsecondary student needs not well served by one organization alone. 9. Certified Postsecondary Transition programs (CPTPs) should be con- sidered by every community college, along with other ways the postsec- ondary education needs of students with ID might otherwise be more appropriately and ethically served. 10. Legislators and policymakers must build strong and genuine partner- ships with professional educators to create a stronger system of public education that will serve America well today and into the future.

In 1910, at the conclusion of his second presidential term, President Theodore Roosevelt stopped in Paris on a world tour and impressed upon residents of the City of Light in his well-known Citizenship in a Republic speech how much each citizen’s productivity in a democracy contributes to the overall strength of society and, conversely, how unproductive members drain away society’s precious resources and weaken the whole. Roosevelt’s philosophy is as useful to modern Americans as it was a century ago, and that is partly due to his remarks being delivered at a historic time of industrial and tech- nological advancement similar in revolutionary effect to the rapid global advancements occurring in those same areas today. Roosevelt delivered these portending and timeless words to citizens living in democratic republics:

If the failure (to thrive as a society) is due to the deliberate and willful fault, then it is not merely a misfortune, it is one of those crimes of ease and self- indulgence, of shrinking from pain and effort and risk, which in the long run Nature punishes more heavily than any other.24

To say the least, America is just beginning to pay for its crimes of self- indulgence. As the United States approached the debt ceiling in 2012 again, RESTORING AMERICA’S CULTURE OF LEARNING 197 more than a few pundits have observed that refusing to take on more debt and instead signing on for austerity measures would be a step in the right direction. Responding to our escalating economic crisis by raising the debt ceiling is a lot like attempting to engineer a more highly educated citizenry by paying students to attend higher education while requiring nothing of them to qualify for the investment—in fact, the long-standing latter philoso- phy has contributed considerably to former concern. Short-sighted, irresponsible quick fixes not only always fail to solve com- plex problems, but they also feed them by obscuring the causes to Americans who with honest information would at least have the opportunity to exercise different values through choice and action. Politicians and policymakers— who are elected and/or kept employed by making constituents happy—have for far too many years found it in their professional self-interest to create a false environment of comfort for those they have been trusted to lead, unwilling to ask much from the citizens they serve for fear of political repri- sal. The scenario is not unlike unfit parents who seek to gain popularity by indulging their children instead of engaging in the disciplined work of rais- ing them well to be contributing members of society. Can’t get into college classes because your basic skills are too low? We will fix that by eliminating developmental education! Can’t earn a college degree because your basic skills are too low? We will fix that by funding col- leges by the credential! Laissez-faire leadership and parenting may appeal to both governed parties in the short term, but the long-term negative effects spell unmitigated disaster for society as whole. The same is true of excus- ing students for poor academic achievement by pushing the responsibility of student learning squarely onto professional educators. These strategies may buy policymakers their highly-prized ephemeral data gains, but society as a whole loses when years down the road this country turns to its leaders in even greater crisis only to realize no one capable remains to lead our once- great country.

The Advantages of Inviting Competition Phil Knight once shared that legendary coach Bill Bowerman, Knight’s University of Oregon track coach and co-founder of the Nike shoe com- pany, considered himself not a track coach, but “a professor of competitive response.”25 Bower ma n’s i mpres sive coach i ng résu mé upon ret i rement boa sted four national championships, an Olympics, and more sub-four-minute milers than any other coach in history. He trained his athletes properly and coached them to respond when performance counted; in doing so, he developed each runner to achieve at or very close to his greatest potential. First and foremost, Bowerman coached his runners to be competitors, and that attention to devel- oping a winning attitude and a persistent character accounted time and again for his runners’ consistently superior performance. As all high achievers do, Bowerman and his athletes lived for challenges. They embraced hard work and welcomed tough competition; and by observing the highest standards in daily 198 COMMUNITY COLLEGES AND THE ACCESS EFFECT practice, they enjoyed great success in competition. Steve Prefontaine, three- time national cross-country champion and three-time national champion in the 5000-meter, was coached by Bowerman at the University of Oregon, and is widely considered America’s greatest middle- and long-distance runner in history. Prefontaine once poetically explained his success as follows: “To give anything less than your best is to sacrifice the gift.”26 Lowering education standards to manufacture completion gains will not only fail to accomplish the expressed goals of the completion agenda— increased employment, economic growth, and global competitiveness— but will also cheat generations of Americans out of the joy and rewards of reaching their human potential. In an educational environment with low standards that depress achievement, society forever loses the undeveloped talents of uneducated and unproductive individuals who otherwise devel- oped would have contributed amazing things to the world. Many more gifts to humanity will be needlessly sacrificed if we fail to promote excellence as a way of American life. In response to an article shared on a social media platform about the counterintuitive negative effects of helicopter parenting, a spirited conversa- tion ensued about one author’s godson, with the boy’s mother commenting that her son’s teachers stifle his academic growth through excessive hand- holding. She explained that her son invited his teachers to support him far too much because, as an immature 12-year-old, he lacked the foresight to understand that his personal failure to work hard and strategically build his skill set was only hurting his own future. The child’s father then shared a broader observation that acceptable performance by American students continuously regresses toward the mean and away from excellence, “It’s sad what has happened in public schools . . . I might call it a gross homogeniza- tion of human development.”27 He questioned modern society’s tendency to de-emphasize competition, pointing out the practice of some youth ath- letic leagues no longer keeping score during games in a bizarre attempt to bolster participants’ confidence and supposedly achieve healthier player development. The child’s father argued, “Why? What message does this send? Losing is SO BAD that we don’t think our young children can stomach it? A 5-year- old can only project an adult belief that losing is so bad that we should just pretend that it does not exist, when losing with class and immediately gain- ing your footing to learn and come back smarter and better is exactly what we all require to succeed in the big, bad world.”28 Educator Peter DeWitt concurred that, “Many students enter college not understanding what it means to fail,” and advised, “Rejection, when looked at positively, can help us work harder in an effort to succeed. The reality is that when we do not prepare students for failure we are doing our students a disservice. They must learn resiliency and how to move forward in the face of failure.”29 Winston Churchill, in fact, defined success as “the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm,”30 and DeWitt is absolutely right to RESTORING AMERICA’S CULTURE OF LEARNING 199 blame America’s adults for not adequately challenging students and prepar- ing them to be tomorrow’s world leaders. David L. Shields is co-founder of TrueCompetition.org, a nonprofit organization committed to advancing healthy competition in society. In a recent lecture subtitled Reclaiming Competition for Excellence, Ethics and Enjoyment, Shields assured, “Competition is a vital part of our life and (democratic) society.”31 He elaborated in a Harvard Business Review article, “’Contests’ (can be) mentally processed through a contest-is-partnership metaphor. This leads to genuine competition (the word competition lit- erally means ‘to strive with’). Competition, so understood, pits people’s immediate interests in opposition, but it does so to serve a larger mutually- beneficial purpose. . . . Through intense competition, the whole of society benefits. Competition serves excellence”32 [emphasis added]. The father of the author’s godson went on to recount some of the negative effects of heli- copter parenting—the equivalent of community colleges routinely requir- ing no performance to enter, followed by faculty and other student success efforts providing so many in-course crutches that students are shielded from the learning process—and closed with this keen observation: “As soon as you micro-manage a human being, you foster dependency, resentment, and in a certain sense, a lifelong slave.”33 It has been said that platitudes lead to latitudes. In a 2012 article pushing for American STEM achievement, where American CEOs were described as staggered by the low technical and scientific knowledge of American workers, the author added this painful truth: “Self-esteem: The sole measure in which the average American high school student leads the world.”34 This unique American phenomenon is corroborated by PISA survey data, which found that 15-year-old US students “usually rate themselves comparatively highly in academic performance . . . even when they did not do well comparatively.”35 The OECD reported that cultural differences might account for some of the overestimation, “but one interpretation is also that students are being com- mended for work that would not be acceptable in high-performing education systems.”36 American grade inflation at all levels of education account for students’ frequent misperception of their actual abilities, which inevitably are discovered at the most inopportune time . . . when performance really mat- ters. This while the author of a recent article on grade inflation in America wrote, “Americans like feeling good about themselves, their school, and their futures even when warning bells are ringing all around us.”37 Rather than being instrumental in helping students meet their true poten- tial, the combination of open admissions and unchecked FSA availability has proved too late to many who spent years in K-12 with no sense of urgency that the path to a college degree is truly too steep. Shamefully, society will never know what those capable, yet seriously unprepared students might have contributed to the world. Unfortunately, policymakers responsible for crafting a contrived higher education environment devoid of any admissions standard thieve citizen after citizen—unbeknownst to them at the time—of 200 COMMUNITY COLLEGES AND THE ACCESS EFFECT the opportunity to fully self-actualize by insulating K-12 students from rea- sonable expectations that surely color every corner of the rest of the world. Our most vulnerable students—those who would benefit most from high societal standards—are cheated by leaders who demand nothing from them yet promise access to college, as if access without adequate preparation is some cherished prize. Far too many students coast through 13 years of public education to learn abruptly upon qualifying for developmental education coursework that they wasted a lot of time not preparing well for the inescap- able academic and employment challenges the world brings to their doorstep to contend with.

The Imperative for Improving America’s Culture of Learning Philosopher and writer Ayn Rand once mused, “Identify the dominant phi- losophy of a society and you can predict its future,”38 which lends perspective to Seth Meyers’ report on a recent Weekend Update segment on Saturday Night Live that “A new trend on YouTube is ‘milking,’ in which people record themselves pouring a gallon of milk over their heads. While another hot new trend is having our asses handed to us by China.”39 In an impassioned exchange with one of the authors around the decline of educational values in America, a colleague bemoaned that popular media glorify “. . . what I would call ‘dumb chic.’ They make it appear that success is a matter of doing something ridiculous to be discovered.”40 These observations stand in stark contrast to reality, which of course strongly ties socioeconomic success in twenty-first-century America to increasing levels of academic preparation. In the words of Carnevale and Stroh, “The growing importance of general education and . . . competencies such as problem-solving, critical thinking, communication, and teamwork is at the heart of the switch from the indus- trial to the postindustrial service economy.”41And so the failure to develop these very assets in Americans also is at the very heart of our postsecondary completion crisis. America does not even have a postsecondary completion and employability crisis; we have an everything-before-postsecondary-entry crisis that drives our postsecondary completion, employment, and economic struggles. Willful ignorance toward America’s declining valuation of education is deep at the root of America’s achievement issues. Professional educators who choose to work in the public sector and have devoted their lives to improv- ing others’ remain under constant scrutiny—their worth increasingly and imprudently “measured” econometrically for the value they add to students. Public higher education institutions, which enroll the most Americans by far, are increasingly funded for graduating more students and more richly compensated for graduating certain kinds of students, while the viewpoints of professional educators are often forced into the corner, if even allowed in the room, as outsiders discuss improving student success in ways that, inten- tional or not, ignore the importance of the most significant variable: student commitment. Is there a critical mass of underperforming American students RESTORING AMERICA’S CULTURE OF LEARNING 201 even aware that a massive, national effort buzzes around them and attempts to engineer their academic achievement? Do they know a completion agenda even exists? More importantly, are students being raised from the cradle in the context of a national hum that consistently conveys the personal and societal value of participating in an educated citizenry? Much effort is focused on measuring and improving instructional and insti- tutional activities, and comparatively precious little on cultivating in Americans of all ages a passionate commitment to lifelong learning for the purpose of contributing meaningfully to society—locally, nationally, and globally. And to suggest that American prosperity is all that is at stake would be incredibly shortsighted. As Friedman and Mandelbaum point out: “(America’s) . . . seem- ing inability today to rise to our greatest challenges . . . has enormous foreign policy implications. America plays a huge and, more often than not, con- structive role in the world today.”42 In other words, as go America’s political and economic power so goes the ability to positively influence political lead- ers and policymakers around the globe with American values on important matters, like basic human rights and ethical governments. Advised Friedman in a recent New York Times op-ed piece, “A more interdependent world des- perately needs an America at its best.”43

Raise the Children to be Readers Ray Bradbury, author of Fahrenheit 451, the 1953 novel published about suppression of thought through burning books/destruction of information at the height of McCarthyism once famously said, “You don’t have to burn books to destroy a culture. Just get people to stop reading them.”44 Indeed, a 2004 survey of literary reading in America, conducted by the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), showed that literary reading declines paral- leled those in total book reading from snapshots taken at 1982, 1992, and 2002. And while women and whites still rank among those who read the most, Americans’ overall reading habits declined precipitously over those 20 years in every disaggregated group by gender, age, level of education, and race/ethnicity. The survey’s specific focus was on reading literary texts because of the strong correlation between such reading behavior and civic participation, political engagement, volunteerism, and charity work, among participating in other activities important to a healthy democracy and econ- omy. The Reading at Risk report authors interpreted the survey results as “a testimony that a cultural legacy is disappearing.”45 They referenced A Nation at Risk, and noted that while the decline of literary reading rates of adults created “an imminent cultural crisis,”46 trends seen in youth reading were of even greater concern, concluding that “unless some effective solution is found—literary culture, and literacy in general, will continue to worsen.”47 Finally, the report’s authors predicted that literary reading as a leisure activ- ity will effectively disappear by 2050 if present rate of decline continues. The NEA’s 2007 follow-up report, To Read or Not to Read: A Question of National Consequence,48 painted an even drearier picture of reading in 202 COMMUNITY COLLEGES AND THE ACCESS EFFECT

America than its predecessor did just three years earlier. Using NAEP scores, the NEA report revealed a lone bright spot in that nine-year-old readers’ abilities had consistently trended up since 1992, with a significant jump in 2004. However, 13-year-olds’ score remained relatively flat during those 12 years, and high school seniors’ performance dropped significantly over time. One might draw the inference that young American children are natu- rally eager learners, and over time are being influenced by societal messages that instruct reading and learning are not redeeming activities. Only the seniors scoring on the NAEP in the 90th percentile maintained the same performance level between 1992 and 2005; the student scores constituting the 75th, 50th, 25th, and 10th percentiles in 2005 were significantly lower than the scores in those ranges in 1992. Worse, students scoring in the 10th, or lowest, percentile accounted for the greatest performance loss between 2005 and 1992 compared with the losses posted by the students in all other standard deviations. Perfect cor- relations were observed between the 2005 seniors’ NAEP reading and writ- ing scores and the frequency with which students reported reading for fun. According to the National Center for Education Statistics figures included in the NEA report, perfect correlations were also observed between reading scores and employment in management and professional occupations, as well as with income. Then-NEA chairman Dana Gioia tendered this about the 2007 results: “How does one summarize t his disturbing stor y? A s A mericans, especially younger Americans, read less, they read less well. Because they read less well, they have lower levels of academic achievement.”49 Serving on a panel about school improvement in 2012, community college leader Thomas Walker sagely advised a roomful of educators and parents of school- children: “Reading is the straw that stirs the drink.”50 In the preface of the 2004 Reading at Risk report, Gioia wrote about how much more attention and intellectual engagement reading requires compared to electronic media, like video games and television, which “foster shorter attention spans and accelerated gratification.”51 Gioia advised that “Reading is not a timeless, universal capability” and warned that “to lose such intel- lectual capability . . . would constitute a vast cultural impoverishment.”52 In other words, Gioia was making the point that some of the most valuable individual and societal benefits are gained only through intense, sustained effort, are not easily won, and certainly are not bestowed by birthright. As much as we wring our hands about the persistent achievement gap between low-income and affluent students, there is no shortage of unmoti- vated, affluent students failing to academically achieve anything of import. An intelligent, but unmotivated, student in one of the author’s low-level developmental classes reported one Monday that he had lost his book over the weekend. The author expressed sincere concern, knowing that a lost text- book can mean the end of the road for students not in a financial position to replace it. Instead, the student quickly assured his instructor that everything would be fine. He explained that he had left his book on his grandfather’s jet while heli-skiing in Canada over the weekend, and that book replacement RESTORING AMERICA’S CULTURE OF LEARNING 203 would be no problem. While America’s highest academic achievers compete admirably at the highest levels against their foreign peers, America is losing ground with the rest of the population as the educational attainment curve shifts dangerously toward a left-tail distribution at the very time America’s greatest competitors are moving an impressive swell of their population in the opposite direction. It is hard to argue with Linda Darling-Hammond’s prediction that America’s failure to well-educate our nation’s children will “enact the modern equivalent of the fall of Rome.”53

The Wrong Message? Learning Is a Burden The cold, hard truth is that mastering anything that first presents as difficult requires grit and determination. The learning process, however—with proper attitude and sufficient perseverance—can be and should routinely be a joy- ous undertaking. Do American students, by and large, attend school with unbridled joy in their hearts each day to embrace their abundant and unpar- alleled educational opportunities? Are joyful, engaged students at every level the rule or the exception in this country? Does American culture reflect the virtue of lifelong learning—that enlightenment should be joyfully pursued not only for personal benefit, but also so that each citizen may contribute to society in the ways their unique talents and abilities allow? Or is it closer to say that too many Americans—both children and adults—equate the process of becoming educated with hard work to be avoided? Poor attitudes toward learning unnaturally depress achievement, leaving far too many college graduates to slinking across the stage to pick up their diplomas, taking with them a near-empty pantry of unconnected facts, when graduates should instead be confidently striding toward their futures in com- mand of a valuable body of knowledge and market-valued skills upon which to build their lives. At our peril, will we continue to fail to address America’s attitudinal decay regarding education? If we avoid addressing the heart of the matter—widespread cultural disrespect for and disinterest in genuine learning—should we really be surprised that structural modifications don’t ameliorate lingering low levels of achievement? On the way home from school one day, one of the authors overheard her nine-year-old son enthusiastically singing from the backseat of the car about school, “I’m tired of the same old grind!” Startled, the author asked him where he had learned that school was a “grind.” He shocked her again when he shared that he and his classmates had been practicing the song for weeks in preparation for the third-grade musical. Though there is no shortage of published elementary school musicals, more than 20 years after publication, I Need a Vacation! remains among the most popular performed by elemen- tary students in America.54 After withholding judgment before viewing the full performance, the author and other adult family members sat stunned in the audience, observ- ing the well-coached schoolchildren singing songs and delivering lines that alternated between joking that they would spend time over the summer 204 COMMUNITY COLLEGES AND THE ACCESS EFFECT doing schoolwork (as if!) and complaining to their parents through song and dance about how horrible their experiences were at sports camp, computer camp, and space camp (how tortuous!). The author was astounded that with so many other appealing and positive choices on the market, this curricu- lum had been selected by professional educators. Particularly grating was the fact that these anti-education and anti-science messages were being aimed at impressionable youth at a time when many of the most rewarding jobs go wanting in America for qualified STEM applicants. To meet domestic demand for high-skilled workers, the Immigration Innovation Act of 2013 (I-Squared) was introduced, which significantly expanded the H-1B visa program, a program allowing the temporary import of foreign talent. I-Squared asked for a near-doubling of H-1B visas from 65,000 to 115,000, and included an “escalator” clause to increase the cap on demand.55 Conspicuously, the I-Squared Act exempts foreign gradu- ates from American universities with advanced degrees in the STEM fields from counting against the current cap of permanent, employment-based visas. China produces one-third of the world’s engineers, and is also the #1 source of international graduate students studying in America, with 2012 alone seeing an 18 percent increase in applications from Chinese graduate students.56 Visa fraud legislation, revived for a third time in 2013 by Senators Dick Durbin and Charles Grassley after it failed to pass in 2007 and 2009, raises legitimate concerns over domestic H-1B abuse.57 Some employers scheme to permanently displace American workers by training foreign workers on H-1B visas and then send them home after their visas expire to continue those jobs remotely for lower foreign wages. Though these serious abuses occur, Carnevale and Smith point out that America still has an unsatisfied need for STEM graduates, and argue that ample evidence exists that STEM graduate qualities (analytical, mathematical, and critical thinking ability) make these graduates highly attractive to non-STEM fields.58 American employers are, in other words, greatly interested in importing talent to meet highly specialized STEM needs going unmet by domestic graduates and visa guest workers. There may be a glut of low-skilled STEM workers, but American employ- ers do not have their highest-skilled STEM worker needs met yet. Despite having a higher education system the envy of the world in their own back- yard, not enough American citizens take advantage of it—for a variety of reasons—and employers look toward disciplined and highly educated for- eign students to fill the gap. A friend of one of the authors, who is an engi- neering manager at a Fortune 500 heavy equipment manufacturer, shared his rewarding and enlightening experiences in collaborating with Chinese and Indian engineers overseas, a study in contrast to their blasé American counterparts:

When you get back and you start interfacing with people in the United States . . . many Americans feel entitled to our standard of living. (Chinese and RESTORING AMERICA’S CULTURE OF LEARNING 205

Indian engineers) have much more desire to improve themselves and their communities. They do darned good work. By and large, the capability and desire and initiative of those who work for me outside the United States far surpasses (Americans’).59

Her friend’s perceptions were confirmed by Willard R. Daggett’s (of The International Center for Leadership in Education) almost identical obser- vations that “Americans, in general, and our youth, in particular, seem to believe it is their birthright to enjoy a middle class lifestyle and are lulled into a false sense of security and comfort. . . . We lack the drive needed to match the aggressiveness of other nations in the global economy.”60 The authors, too, have noticed this attitudinal difference in working with stu- dents and higher education leaders from some ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) countries. The ASEAN higher education leaders with whom the authors have worked express extreme interest in and com- mitment to creating a strategic advantage for their people by improving their postsecondary students’ English language skills in academic reading, writing, and speaking. Gaining proficiency with the English language not only increases their students’ ability to participate in the global economy but also subsequently improves their nation’s social, economic, and political position in it.

The Right Message? Treasure Every Learning Opportunity One of the authors visited her daughter’s first-grade class to read a book near the end of the school year and shared Beatrice’s Goat,61 the true tale of an impoverished girl from Uganda whose greatest desire was to attend school, sit on an open-air bench, and write on a slate. Beatrice rejoices when her dream comes true, thanks to income generated by a goat donated to her family from Heifer International. Before reading the story, the author asked the first-graders how many believed every child in the world attended school like they did every weekday. Each child smiled and enthusiastically waved a hand in the air. Throughout the telling of the story, though, the author observed the children’s eager and happy expressions turn serious as, one by one, they began to realize that every child in the world does not enjoy the privilege of attending school. After the story, the author asked what the children planned to do over the summer. The children excitedly shared their many plans to go on vaca- tions and spend time at the swimming pool. The author finally redirected them and pointedly asked if there was anything they thought they should be doing every day over the summer to prepare for second grade; a few children followed the lead and said they should be reading every day. After some dis- cussion about the importance of making reading a daily habit, one little girl looked up pensively and with quiet resolve voiced the lesson she took from Beatrice’s Goat, “I will read more so that when I grow up I can help those people.”62 206 COMMUNITY COLLEGES AND THE ACCESS EFFECT

Citizens in a Republic When Roosevelt spoke to the Parisians about the unique responsibility of each citizen in a democratic republic, he emphasized throughout that “the quality of the individual citizen is supreme”63 because in other governmental structures, only the few with power really need to be well-educated and of moral worth so that good decisions are made on behalf of everyone else. Regarding the success of democratic republics and the important role that leaders play in maintaining high standards for the betterment of society, however, Roosevelt observed the following:

In the long run, success or failure will be conditioned upon the way in which the average man, the average women, does his or her duty, first in the ordi- nary, every-day affairs of life . . . The average citizen must be a good citizen if our republics are to succeed. The stream will not permanently rise higher than the main source; and the main source of national power and national great- ness is found in the average citizenship of the nation. Therefore it behooves us to do our best to see that the standard of the average citizen is kept high; and the average cannot be kept high unless the standard of the leaders is very much higher.64

In 1983, the National Commission on Excellence in Education wrote in A Nation at Risk, “We are confident that the American people, properly informed, will do what is right for their children and for the generations to come.”65 Let now the predictable consequences of your leadership choices and standards inform your decisions and action. From every position of societal influence that is yours—as a parent, grandparent, aunt or uncle, educator, legislator, and/or policymaker—let your every thought, word, and deed honor and value education to the practical and estimable ends of enlightenment and societal advancement. Above all, model lifelong learning for the children so that they will grow to fulfill their greatest purpose. Notes

Introduction 1. The acronym GED is often interpreted as General Equivalency Diploma, General Education Diploma, and Graduate Equivalency Degree, but General Education Development is the official name given by the creators, the American Council on Education. 2. American Association of Community Colleges. “Community College Fact Sheet,” http://www.aacc.nche.edu/AboutCC/Documents/2013facts_fold _revised.pdf (accessed April 28, 2013). 3. J. P. Green and Greg Foster, “Public High School Graduation and College Readiness Rates in the United States,” The Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, September, 2003, http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/ ewp _03.htm (accessed November 25, 2011). 4. American Association of Community Colleges. “Community College Fact Sheet.” 5. Community College Research Center, “Thousands of Community College Students Misplaced into Remedial Classes, New Studies Suggest,” February 28, 2012, http://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/press-releases/thousands_of_community _college_students_misplaced_into_remedial_classes_new_studies_suggest _1036.html (accessed July 10, 2013). 6. Robert Cialdini, Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion, rev. ed. (New York: Harper Collins, 2006), 1. 7. Juliet K. Scherer and Mirra L. Anson, “Improving America’s Culture of Learning: What’s Missing in the Redesign Conversation,” Session Evaluation Form (presentation, annual conference of the National Association for Developmental Education, Denver, CO, February 28, 2013). 8. Tom McCall, interview with Studs Terkel, quoted in “ ‘Heroes are not giant statues framed against a red sky.’ Unit Two,” The Oregon Historical Society, http://www.ohs.org/education/tom-mccall-better-oregon/study -units/heroes-are-not-giant-statues-framed-against-a-red-sky.cfm (accessed December 12, 2012).

1 Open Access in Higher Education 1. Martin Firestein, William Rainey Harper: Young Man in a Hurry, Harper College Library Archives, http://dept.harpercollege.edu/library/archives /williamraineyharper.html (accessed November 18, 2011). 2. William Harper Rainey (1891–1906), The University of Chicago Centennial Catalogues, Special Collections Research Center, The University of Chicago 208 NOTES

Library, http://www-news.uchicago.edu/president/history/harper.shtml (accessed November 25, 2011). 3. Firestein, William Rainey Harper. 4. “History,” Joliet Junior College, http://www.jjc.edu/about/college-info /Pages/history.aspx (accessed January 12, 2012). 5. John K. Folger and Charles B. Nam, Education of the American Population (Newark: Arno Press, 1976), 27. 6. Jesse Parker Bogue, The Community College (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1950), xvii. 7. I bid. 8. Ibid. 9. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, “Table 187—College Enrollment Rates of High School Graduates, by Sex: 1 9 6 0 t o 1 9 9 8 ,” http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d99/tables/PDF /Table187.pdf (accessed June 11, 2013). 10. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, “Table 197—Historical Summary of Faculty, Enrollment, Degrees, and Finances in Degree-Granting Institutions: Selected Years, 1869–70 through 2009–10,” http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d11/tables/dt11_197.asp (accessed June 11, 2013). 11. Robert S. Palinchak, Evolution of the Community College (Mituchen: Scarecrow Press, 1973), 1. 12. Arthur M. Cohen and Florence B. Brawer, The American Community College, 4th ed. (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2003). 13. Robert McCabe and Pat Day Jr., “Access and the New America of the Twenty-First Century,” in Developmental Education: A Twenty-first Century Social and Economic Imperative, 1998, ed. Robert McCabe and Pat Day Jr. (League for Innovation in the Community College, 1998), 3. 14. David E. Lavin and David Hyllegard, Changing the Odds: Open Admissions and the Life Chances of the Disadvantaged (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1996), 195. 15. William A. Kaplin and Barbara A. Lee, A Legal Guide for Student Affairs Professionals (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1997). 16. Cohen and Brawer, The American Community College. 17. Jillian Kinzie et al., “Fifty Years of College Choice,” Lumina Foundation for Education New Agenda Series, no. 5 (2004): 3. 18. Henry T. Kasper, “The Changing Role of Community College,” Occupa- tional Outlook Quarterly, Winter (2002–2003): 19. 19. John Roueche and Suzanne Roueche, Between a Rock and a Hard Place: The At-Risk Student in the Open-door College (Washington, DC: Community College Press, 1993). 20. Robert S. Palinchak, Evolution of the Community College (Mituchen: Scarecrow Press, 1972), 250. 21. Ibid., 3. 22. John Roueche and Suzanne Roueche, “Keeping the Promise: Remedial Education Revisited,” Community College Journal April/May (1999): 13–18. 23. Julian Kinzie, et al., “Keeping the Promise.” 24. Richard Fonte, “Structured versus Laissez-faire Open Access: Implementa- tion of a Proactive Strategy,” New Directions for Community Colleges 100 (1997): 43. NOTES 209

25. Thomas Mitchell, “Daring to Demand: Mandatory Remediation Works!” (presentation, Viewpoints, San Antonio, TX, April 6, 1989). 26. Ibid. 27. Ed Morante, “Selecting Tests and Placing Students,” Journal of Develop- mental Education 13, no. 2 (1989): 57–58. 28. W. Norton Grubb, Honored but Invisible: An Inside Look at Teaching in Community Colleges (New York: Routledge, 1999), 221. 29. National Commission on Excellence in Education, A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, 1983), 5. 30. Shanna Smith Jaggars, Michelle Hodara, and Georgia West Stacey, “Designing meaningful developmental reform.” Research Overview, Community College Research Center (February 2013), http://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/media/k2 /attachments/designing-meaningful-developmental-reform-research -overview.pdf (accessed June 30, 2013). 31. Byron McClenney, “The Future of Developmental Education in Texas Community Colleges,” (presentation, Texas Commission for Higher Education, Austin, TX, September 29, 2008). 32. Suzanne Walsh, “Advocating for Developmental Education,” (presentation, The Advanced Kellogg Institute for Developmental Education, Boone, NC, July 28, 2011). 33. Ibid. 34. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, “Enrollment in Postsecondary Institutions, Fall 2009; Graduation Rates, 2003 & 2006 Cohorts; and Financial Statistics, Fiscal Year 2009,” http:// nces.ed.gov/pubs2011/2011230.pdf (accessed January 22, 2012). 35. “About Us,” Complete College America, http://www.completecollege. org/about/ (accessed June 10, 2013). 36. “Remediation: Higher Education’s Bridge to Nowhere,” Complete College America, http://www.completecollege.org/docs/CCA-Remediation-final .pdf, 7 (accessed June 10, 2013). 37. Paul Fain, “Overkill on Remediation,” Inside Higher Ed (Washington, DC), June 19, 2009, http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/06/19 /complete-college-america-declares-war-remediation (a c c e s s e d J u n e 3 0 , 2013). 38. “An Act Concerning College Readiness and Completion” (PL 12–40, May 31, 2012), Senate Bill No. 40, State of Connecticut, http://cga.ct .gov/2012/ACT/PA/2012PA-00040-R00SB-00040-PA.htm (accessed June 11, 2013). 39. Paul Fain, “Remediation if You Want It,” Inside Higher Ed (Washington, DC), June 5, 2013, http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/06/05 /florida-law-gives-students-and-colleges-flexibility-remediation (accessed June 5, 2013). 40. Michael Collins, quoted in Caralee Adams, “Remediation Demands Stretching Resources of Community Colleges,” Education Week 30, no. 3 (2010): 8–9. 41. Eric Hoover and Sara Lipka, “The Second Chance Club: Inside a Semester of Remedial English,” The Chronicle of Higher Education (Washington, DC), March 11, 2013, http://chronicle.com/article/The-Second-Chance -Club/137817/ (accessed March 11, 2013). 210 NOTES

42. Robert L. Schalock, Ruth A. Luckasson, and Karrie A. Shogren, “The Renaming of Mental Retardation: Understanding the Change to the Term Intellectual Disability,” Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities 45, no. 2 (2007): 119. 43. U.S. Department of Education. “Regulations,” Building the Legacy: IDEA 2004, http://idea.ed.gov/explore/view/p/,root,regs,300,A,300%252E8,c, (accessed June 15, 2013). 44. “Education and Libraries,” Missouri Statutes, 1961, Title XI, 359. 45. Ibid. 46. Ibid., 362–363. 47. Alice C. Warren “The Junior College District of St. Louis—St. Louis County, Missouri, under the Leadership of Joseph P. Cosand, 1962–1971: A Study of the Impact of the Post—World War II Milieu on Policies that Shaped the Institution” (PhD diss., St. Louis University, 1998). 48. Stephen Provasnik and Michael Planty, “Community Colleges: Special Supplement to the Condition of Education 2008,” National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC. 49. Jill Jacobs-Biden, “Student Retention at the Community College: Meeting Students’ Needs” (PhD diss. University of Delaware, 2007), 3.

2 The Trouble in Tucson 1. Roy Flores, “False Hope,” Inside Higher Ed (Washington, DC), February 17, 2011, http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2011/02/17/essay_questions _remedial_education_and_admissions_policies_at_community_colleges (accessed March 17, 2012). 2. Mary Beth Marklein, “Community colleges downsize programs,” USA Today, March 19, 2012, http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/education /story/2012–03–19/community-colleges-cut-programs/53659512/1 (accessed March 26, 2012). 3. David Mendez, “ ‘Pathways to Pima’ Shuts Open Door,” Aztec Press Online (Tucson, AZ), September 1, 2011, http://aztecpressonline.com /2011/09/%E2%80%98pathways-to-pima%E2%80%99-shuts-open-door (accessed July 4, 2012). 4. “Pima Community College Prep Academy,” Pima Community College, http://www.pima.edu/press-room/good-to-know-announcements/docs /prep-academy-at-a-glance.pdf (accessed January 4, 2013). 5. Pima administrator overseeing Pathways to Pima, personal interview with author, April 2, 2012. 6. Ibid. 7. Roy Flores, “False Hope.” 8. Becky Pallack, “Pima College Raises Bar on Admissions,” Arizona Daily Star (Tucson, AZ), September 22, 2011, http://azstarnet.com/news/local /education/college/pima-college-raises-bar-on-admissions/article _6338e54e-33d8–5223-b52b-6afb0ee353c7.html (accessed September 22, 2011). 9. Data Accountability Center: Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Data, “Part B Exiting,” https://www.ideadata.org/PartBExiting.asp (accessed January 4, 2012). NOTES 211

10. Meg Grigal, Debra Hart, and Richard Luecking, Think College! Postsecondary Education Options for Students with Intellectual Disabilities (Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co., Inc., 2010), 237. 11. Arizona Department of Education, “R7–2-302.02 Minimum Course of Study and Competency Requirements for Graduation from High School Beginning with the Graduation Class of 2013,” http://www.azed.gov /wp-content/uploads/2013/04/state-board-graduation-requirements.pdf (accessed April 23, 2013). 12. Data Accountability Center: Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Data, “Part B Exiting.” 13. Roy Flores, “False Hope.” 14. “President’s page,” Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education, http://www.wiche.edu/about/president (accessed January 5, 2013). 15. Roy Flores, “False Hope.” 16. Ibid. 17. State of Arizona, “Journal of the Senate, 1960,” Twenty-Fourth Legislature of the State of Arizona, Second Regular Session, 1–2. 18. Paul Fain, “Pima Community College’s Deep Accreditation Crisis,” Inside Higher Ed (Washington, DC), March 28, 2013, http://www.insidehighered .com/news/2013/03/28/pima-community-colleges-deep-accreditation -crisis (accessed March 28, 2013). 19. Carol Ann Alaimo, “Pima College to Tucson: ‘We did not listen’ and are sorry,” Arizona Daily Star (Tucson, AZ), July 7, 2013, http://azstarnet.com/news /local/education/pima-college-to-tucson-we-did-not-listen-and-are/article _0e3342f0–1aa5–50a3–91ff-186e0b50192b.html (accessed July 8, 2013). 20. “The Developmental Education Redesign,” Colorado Community College System, http://www.cccs.edu/developmental-education/index.html (accessed April 20, 2013). 21. Personal communication on July 24, 2013. 22. Colorado Sessions Laws, State Universities, Colleges, and Academies, 1967, House Bill 1448 (accessed July 1, 2013); available from LexisNexis, 437. 23. Colorado Legal Resources, “Title 23. Postsecondary Education Com- munity Colleges and Occupational Education. Part 2. State System of Community and Technical Colleges,” (accessed July 1, 2013); available from LexisNexis. 24. “Currently or Previously Affiliated Institutions,” Higher Learning Commission, http://www.ncahlc.org/component/com_directory/Itemid, /form_submitted,TRUE/institution,/showquery,/state,CO/submit, Search/ (accessed April 20, 2013). 25. U.S. Department of Education, “2012–2013 FSA Handbook with Active Index,” Federal Student Aid, http://ifap.ed.gov/fsahandbook/attachments /1213FSAHandbookCompleteActiveIndex.pdf (accessed January 12, 2013).

3 The Price of Completion at Any Cost 1. Heath Prince and Vickie Choitz, “The Credential Differential: The Public Return to Increasing Postsecondary Credential Attainment,” Center for Postsecondary and Economic Success, http://www.clasp.org/admin/site /publications/files/Full-Paper-The-Credential-Differential.pdf (accessed December 27, 2012). 212 NOTES

2. Paul Fain, “Pima Community College’s Deep Accreditation Crisis.” Inside Higher Ed (Washington, DC), March 29, 2013, http://www.insidehighered .com/news/2013/03/28/pima-community-colleges-deep-accreditation -crisis (accessed April 26, 2013). 3. “Remediation: Higher Education’s Bridge to Nowhere,” Complete College America, http://www.completecollege.org/docs/CCA-Remediation-final .pdf (accessed June 10, 2013). 4. Jacqueline Rabe Thomas, “Lawmakers Consider Opening College Courses to Everyone,” The Connecticut Mirror (Hartford, CT), February 16, 2013, http://www.ctmirror.org/story/lawmakers-consider-opening-college -courses-everyone (accessed March 4, 2012). 5. Jeffrey R. Young, “A Conversation with Bill Gates about the Future of Higher Education,” The Chronicle of Higher Education (Washington, DC), June 25, 2012, http://chronicle.com/article/A-Conversation-With-Bill- Gates/132591/ (accessed July 3, 2012). 6. “Reclaiming the American Dream: Community Colleges and the Nation’s Future: A Report from the 21st Century Commission on the Future of Community Colleges,” American Association of Community Colleges, http://www.aacc.nche.edu/aboutcc/21stcenturyreport/index.html (accessed April 12, 2012). 7. I bid. 8. Ibid., 10. 9. Hunter R. Boylan, What Works: Research-Based Best Practices in Develop- mental Education (Ranch, TX: Continuous Quality Improvement Network, 2002). 10. Clifford Adelman, “The Toolbox Revisited: Paths to Completion from High School through College,” Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/toolboxrevisit/toolbox .pdf (accessed January 3, 2012). 11. Debra Humphreys, “What’s Wrong with the Completion Agenda—And What We can Do about It,” Liberal Education 98, no. 1, 8–17, (2012). 12. Michael Baumgartner, “Principles and Perspectives on Funding for Outcomes” (presentation, The Council on State Governments National Conference, Austin, TX, December 2, 2012, in Austin, TX), http://youtu .be/ZtC_1i1GB4s (accessed December 21, 2012). 13. “America’s Future: A Conversation with Bill Gates and Thomas Friedman,” The Gates Notes, March 2, 2012, http://www.thegatesnotes.com/Personal /Americas-Future-Bill-Gates-Thomas-Friedman (accessed March 9, 2012). 14. “Boosting Completion at Community Colleges: Time, Choice, Structure and the Significant Role of States,” Complete College America, August 3, 2010, http://dl.dropbox.com/u/13281059/White%20House%20Briefing%20 for%20Community%20College%20Summit%20%28FINAL%29.pdf (accessed March 26, 2013), 3. 15. Ibid., 4. 16. Richard P. Keeling and Richard H. Hersh, We’re Losing Our Minds: Rethinking American Higher Education (New York: Palgrave Macmillian, 2011), 17. 17. Ibid. 18. Ibid., 8. 19. Ibid., 23. 20. “Where We Stand,” Complete College America, http://www.completecollege .org/path_forward/ (accessed March 25, 2013). NOTES 213

21. Cassie Hall and Scott L. Thomas, “Advocacy Philanthropy and the Public Policy Agenda” (presentation, Annual American Educational Research Association, Vancouver, Canada, April 2012). 22. Ibid., 23. 23. Doug Lederman, “Foundations’ Newfound Advocacy,” Inside Higher Ed (Washington, DC), April 13, 2012, http://www.insidehighered.com/news /2012/04/13/study-assesses-how-megafoundations-have-changed-role -higher-ed-philanthropy (accessed April 26, 2012). 24. Ibid. 25. Ibid. 26. Ibid. 27. Jeffrey R. Young, “A Conversation with Bill Gates about the Future of Higher Education,” The Chronicle of Higher Education (Washington, DC), June 25, 2012, http://chronicle.com/article/A-Conversation-With-Bill -Gates/132591/ (accessed July 3, 2012). 28. Sam Dillon, “Behind Grass-roots School Advocacy, Bill Gates,” The New York Times, May 21, 2011, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/22 /education/22gates.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 (accessed March 13, 2013). 29. “Who We Are: Financials,” Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, http:// www.gatesfoundation.org/Who-We-Are/General-Information/Financials (accessed March 24, 2013). 30. Lumina Foundation, “Financials,” 2009, 2010, & 2011 Form 990s, http:// www.luminafoundation.org/about_us/financials.html (accessed March 24, 2013). 31. Hall and Thomas, “Foundations’ Newfound Advocacy,” 35. 32. Ibid., 40. 33. Ibid., 31. 34. Rob Reich, “What Are Foundations for?” Boston Review, March/April 2013, http://www.bostonreview.net/BR38.2/ndf_rob_reich_foundations _philanthropy_democracy.php (accessed April 27, 2013). 35. Ibid. 36. Hall and Thomas, “Foundations’ Newfound Advocacy,” 33. 37. Marc Parry, Kelly Field, and Beckie Supiano, “The Gates Effect,” The Chronicle of Higher Education (Washington, DC), July 14, 2013, http:// chronicle.com/article/The-Gates-Effect/140323/ (accessed July 24, 2013). 38. Jennifer Medina, “National Attention and Cash in Los Angeles School Vote,” New York Times, March 2, 2013, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/04 /education/los-angeles-school-board-race-attracts-national-attention-and -money.html (accessed March 24, 2013). 39. Sara Sparks, “L.A. chief John Deasy: Depoliticize education research,” Education Week, March 14, 2013, http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/inside -school-research/2013/03/la_chief_john_deasy_depolitici.html?cmp =ENL-EU-NEWS2 (accessed March 24, 2013). 40. “Stan Jones,” Complete College America, http://www.completecollege.org /about/staff/stan_jones/ (accessed March 10, 2013). 41. Complete College America, “Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax,” 2009 Form 990, http://www.completecollege.org/docs/Form%20 990.pdf (accessed March 10, 2013), 1. 42. Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, “Return of Private Foundation,” 2009 Form 990-PF., http://docs.gatesfoundation.org/about/documents/bmgf -2009–990pf.pdf (accessed March 24, 2013). 214 NOTES

43. Ibid., 55. 44. Ibid. 45. Complete College America, “Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax,” 2009. 46. Complete College America, “Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax,” 2011 Form 990, http://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/28697036 /CCA%202011%20Form%20990%20Public%20Disclosure%20Copy.pdf (accessed March 10, 2013). 47. Ibid. 48. Complete College America, “Completion Innovation Challenge,” http:// www.completecollege.org/path_forward/innovation_challenge/ (accessed March 12, 2013). 49. Complete College America, “Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax,” 2010 Form 990, http://www.completecollege.org /docs/2010%20Form%20990%20Filed%20Web.pdf (accessed March 24, 2013). 50. Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, “Return of Private Foundation,” 2010 Form 990-PF, http://docs.gatesfoundation.org/about/documents/2010 -bmgf-990-pf.pdf (accessed March 24, 2013). 51. Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, “Return of Private Foundation,” 2011 Form 990-PF, http://docs.gatesfoundation.org/about/documents/bmgf _foundation%20-%202011%20form%20990-pf.pdf, 77 of the pdf (accessed March 24, 2013). 52. Tennessee Higher Education Commission, “Complete College Tennessee Act Summary,” http://www.state.tn.us/thec/complete_college_tn/ccta _summary.html (accessed March 10, 2013). 53. Complete College America, “Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax,” 2011 Form 990, http://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/28697036 /CCA%202011%20Form%20990%20Public%20Disclosure%20Copy.pdf (accessed March 10, 2013). 54. Tennessee Higher Education Commission, “2010–2015 Performance Funding Cycle Overview,” July 2010, http://www.state.tn.us/thec/Divisions /AcademicAffairs/performance_funding/PF%202010–15%20Guidebook %20Mar%2017%202011.pdf (accessed March 10, 2013). 55. Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges, “Arkansas Senate Bill 766,” http://agb.org/ingram/policy/arkansas-senate-bill-766 (posted in 2011, accessed March 10, 2013). 56. Kevin Kiley, “Performance Anxiety,” Inside Higher Ed (Washington, DC), December 16, 2011, http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2011/12/16 /indiana-revamps-performance-funding-focusing-first-year-completion (accessed March 10, 2013). 57. “Plan would Link Kentucky Schools’ Performance Funding,” Diverse Issues in Higher Education, November 14, 2011, http://diverseeducation.com /article/16632/# (accessed March 10, 2013). 58. Laura Diamond, “Georgia College Funding to Focus on Graduation, not Enrollment,” Atlanta Journal-Constitution (Atlanta, GA), December 12, 2012, http://www.ajc.com/news/news/local/georgia-college-funding-to -focus-on-graduation-not/nTTYY/ (accessed March 10, 2013). 59. Paul Fain, “Complete College America Declares War on Remediation,” Inside Higher Ed (Washington, DC), June 19, 2012, http://www.insidehighered NOTES 215

.com/news/2012/06/19/complete-college-america-declares-war-remediation (accessed July 3, 2012). 60. Paul Fain, “Complete College America Declares War on Remediation,” Inside Higher Ed (Washington, DC), June 19, 2012, http://www.inside highered.com/news/2012/06/19/complete-college-america-declares-war -remediation (accessed July 3, 2012). 61. Complete College America, “Boosting Completion at Community Colleges: Time, Choice, Structure and the Significant Role of States,” http:// dl.dropbox.com/u/13281059/White%20House%20Briefing%20for%20 Community%20College%20Summit%20%28FINAL%29.pdf (accessed March 26, 2013), 1. 62. “About us,” Complete College America, http://www.completecollege.org /about/ (accessed March 10, 2013). 63. Barack Obama, as quoted in “Obama Proposes New System for Rating Colleges,” Associated Press, August 22, 2013, http://www.stltoday.com /news/national/govt-and-politics/obama-proposes-new-system-for -rating-colleges/article_39c9760c-1750–554f-aff1–990b9a70ca82.html (accessed August 22, 2013). 64. The White House Office of the Press Secretary, “Fact Sheet on the President’s Plan to Make CCollege more Affordable: A Bargain for the Middle Class,” August 22, 2013, http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press -office/2013/08/22/fact-sheet-president-s-plan-make-college-more -affordable-better-bargain (accessed August 22, 2013). 65. Ibid. 66. Thomas Bailey, Shanna Smith Jaggars, and Judith Scott-Clayton, “Characterizing the Effectiveness of Developmental Education: A Response to Recent Criticism,” Community College Research Center, February 2013, http://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/media/k2/attachments/response-to-goudas -and-boylan.pdf (accessed March 24, 2013). 67. “About CCRC,” Community College Research Center, http://ccrc.tc .columbia.edu/ (accessed March 24, 2013). 68. Lumina Foundation. “Financials,” http://www.luminafoundation.org/about _us/financials.html (accessed March 24, 2013). 69. Lumina Foundation, “2011 Form 990-PF,” accessed March 24, 2013, http:// www.luminafoundation.org/advantage/document/financial/2011-Form _990-PF.pdf. 70. Lumina Foundation, “2009 Form 990-PF,” http://www.luminafoundation .org/advantage/document/financial/2009-Form_990-PF.pdf (accessed March 24, 2013), 51. 71. Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, “2011 Form 990-PF,” http://docs. gatesfoundation.org/about/documents/bmgf_foundation%20-%20 2011%20form%20990-pf.pdf (accessed March 24, 2013), 264. 72. Community College Research Center, “Publications,” http://ccrc.tc .columbia.edu/our-research.html (accessed July 3, 2013). 73. Doug Lederman, “Consensus or groupthink?” Inside Higher Ed (Washington, DC), November 22, 2010, http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/11 /22/foundations (accessed March 25, 2013). 74. Sam Dillon, “Behind Grass-Roots School Advocacy, Bill Gates,” New York Times (New York, NY), May 21, 2011, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/22 /education/22gates.html?pagewanted=all (accessed March 13, 2013). 216 NOTES

75. Rob Reich, “What Are Foundations for?” Boston Review, March/April 2013, http://www.bostonreview.net/BR38.2/ndf_rob_reich_foundations _philanthropy_democracy.php (accessed April 27, 2013). 76. Ibid. 77. Daniel Greenstein, “A Response to the Chronicle’s ‘The Gates Effect,’ ” Impatient Optimists: Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, July 16, 2013, http://www.impatientoptimists.org/Posts/2013/07/placeholder (accessed July 26, 2013). 78. Paul Fain, “Complete College America Declares War on Remediation,” Inside Higher Ed (Washington, DC), June 19, 2012, http://www.inside highered.com/news/2012/06/19/complete-college-america-declares -war-remediation (accessed July 3, 2012). 79. E-mail message to author, from [email protected], June 7, 2012. 80. Doug Lederman, “Foundations’ Newfound Advocacy,” Inside Higher Ed (Washington, DC), April 13, 2012, http://www.insidehighered.com /news/2012/04/13/study-assesses-how-megafoundations-have-changed -role-higher-ed-philanthropy (accessed April 26, 2012). 81. Personal communication with the author on March 25, 2013. 82. Valerie Strauss, “Education Reform as a Business,” The Washington Post Weblog, entry posted on January 9, 2013, http://www.washingtonpost.com /blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/01/09/education-reform-as-a-business/ (accessed March 24, 2013). 83. Evelyn M. Rusli, “Mark Zuckerberg unveils Political Advocacy Group Fwd.us,” The Wall Street Journal, April 11, 2013, http://blogs.wsj.com /digits/2013/04/11/mark-zuckerberg-unveils-political-advocacy-group -fwd-us/ (accessed May 19, 2013). 84. “Major Players in the MOOC Universe,” The Chronicle of Higher Education, http://chronicle.com/article/The-Major-Players-in-the-MOOC/138817/ (accessed July 2, 2013). 85. Jennifer Medina, “National Attention and Cash in Los Angeles School Vote.” 86. Joy Resmovits, “Glenda Ritz wins Superintendent Job in Indiana, upsetting Republican Incumbent Tony Bennett,” Huff Post Education, November 7, 2012, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/07/glenda-ritz-superin tendent-for-public-instruction_n_2089866.html (accessed March 2, 2013). 87. Peter Schorsch, “Five Questions for Education Commissioner Tony Bennett,” Saint Peters Blog, May 17, 2013, accessed July 3, 2013 from http://www .saintpetersblog.com/five-questions-for-education-commissioner-tony -bennett-2. 88. Stephanie Banchero and Arian Campo-Flores, “Florida Education Chief Resigns amid Indiana Controversy,” The Wall Street Journal, August 1, 2013, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014241278873236819045786 41951137191798.html (accessed August 1, 2013). 89. David Sirota, “Getting Rich off of Schoolchildren,” Salon, March 11, 2013, http://www.salon.com/2013/03/11/getting_rich_off_of_schoolchildren/ (accessed March 24, 2013). 90. Ibid. 91. Ibid. 92. Ibid. NOTES 217

4 The Perils of Paying for Performance 1. “State Funding for Community Colleges: A 50-State Survey,” Center for Community College Policy at the Education Commission of the States, November 2000, http://faccc.org/research/FTEspending_bystate.pdf (accessed October 11, 2012). 2. “Essential Steps for States: Shift to Performance Funding,” Complete College America, http://www.completecollege.org/docs/CCA%20Essential%20 Steps%20Shift%20to%20Performance%20Funding.pdf (accessed February 2, 2013). 3. Kysie Miao, “Performance-Based Funding of Higher Education: A Detailed Look at Best Practices in 6 States,” Center for American Progress, August 7, 2012, http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/higher-education/report /2012/08/07/12036/performance-based-funding-of-higher-education/ (accessed February 2, 2013). 4. Doug Lederman, “Performance Funding Underperforms,” Inside Higher Ed Washington DC, November 18, 2013, http://www.insidehighered.com /news/2013/11/18/studies-question-effectiveness-state-performance -based-funding (accessed December 14, 2013). 5. “Boosting Postsecondary Education Performance,” Committee for Economic Development, 2012, http://www.ced.org/images/content/issues/postsec ondary/boostingpost2nded.pdf (accessed February 3, 2012). 6. Chris Winstead, “Bill Gates on Increasing University Graduation Rates,” Chris Winstead Weblog, entry posted December 10, 2012, http://chriswin stead.net/2012/12/10/bill-gates-on-increasing-university-graduation -rates/ (accessed March 28, 2013). 7. “Redesign and Policy Discussions” (roundtable discussion, annual confer- ence of the National Association for Developmental Education, Denver, CO, February 28, 2013). 8. Thomas Bailey, Katherine Hughes, and Shanna Smith Jaggars, “Law Hamstrings College Remedial Programs,” Hartford Courant, May 18, 2012, http://articles.courant.com/2012–05–18/news/hc-op-bailey-college -remedial-education-bill-too-r-20120518_1_remedial-classes-community -college-research-center-remedial-education (accessed May 21, 2012). 9. “Redesign and Policy Discussions.” 10. Michael Baumgartner, “Principles and Perspectives on Funding for Outcomes,” (presentation, The Council on State Governments National Conference, Austin, TX, December 2, 2012 in Austin, TX), http://youtu .be/ZtC_1i1GB4s (accessed December 21, 2012). 11. Ibid. 12. Ben Wieder, “More College Grads could Mean Billions for U.S.” The Pew Charitable Trusts, April 27, 2012, http://www.pewstates.org/projects /stateline/headlines/more-college-grads-could-mean-billions-for-us -85899383077 (accessed April 28, 2012). 13. “Essential Steps for States,” Complete College America. 14. Bill McClellan, “Campus Funding ‘Fix’ Gets an ‘F’ in My Book,” St. Louis Post Dispatch (St. Louis, MO), April 18, 2012, http://www.stltoday.com /news/local/columns/bill-mcclellan/mcclellan-campus-funding-fix-gets -an-f-in-my-book/article_0ba421c7–78a9–587b-a803–576aaec2dbe8 .html (accessed April 18, 2012). 218 NOTES

15. Ryan Reyna, “Complete to Compete: Common College Completion Metrics,” National Governors Association Chair’s Initiative, June 2010, http://www.nga.org/files/live/sites/NGA/files/pdf/1007COMMON COLLEGEMETRICS.PDF (accessed December 21, 2012). 16. Richard Arum and Josipa Roksa, Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on College Campuses (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1997), 123. 17. Debra Humphreys, “What’s Wrong with the Completion Agenda—and What We can Do about It,” Liberal Education 98, no. 1, 8–17, (2012). 18. Audrey Williams June, “Adjuncts Build Strength in Numbers,” Chronicle of Higher Education, November 5, 2012, http://chronicle.com/article /Adjuncts-Build-Strength-in/135520/ (accessed May 29, 2013). 19. Jennifer Gonzalez, “Number of U.S. Degree Holders Is Rising, Slowly, Toward Lumina’s ‘Big Goal,’ ” The Chronicle of Higher Education (Washington, DC), March 26, 2012, http://chronicle.com/article/Number -of-US-Degree-Holders/131319/ (accessed December 21, 2012). 20. Ibid. 21. Bill McClellan, “Campus Funding ‘Fix’Gets an ‘F’ in My Book.” 22. Anya Kamenetz, “Dropouts: College’s 37-Million-Person Crisis—and How to Solve It,” The Atlantic, December 5, 2012, http://www.theatlantic.com /business/archive/2012/12/dropouts-colleges-37-million-person-crisis -and-how-to-solve-it/265916/ (accessed December 10, 2012). 23. Clifford Adelman, “The Toolbox Revisited: Paths to Degree Completion from High School Through College,” U.S. Department of Education, February 2006, http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/toolbox revisit/toolbox.pdf (accessed January 3, 2013). 24. Don Hossler, et al., “Transfer and Mobility: A National View of Pre-Degree Student Movement in Postsecondary Institutions,” National Student Clearinghouse Research Center, February 2012, http://www.studentclear inghouse.info/signature/2/NSC_Signature_Report_2.pdf, 6 (accessed January 2, 2012). 25. Ibid. 26. “Essential Steps for States,” Complete College America. 27. Hossler, et al., “Transfer and Mobility.” 28. Ibid. 29. Personal communication with the author, February 28, 2013. 30. Matthew 6:21, The Holy Bible, New King James Version. 31. Diane Ravitch, The Death and Lift of the Great American School System: How Testing and Choice Are Undermining Education (New York: Basic Books, 2010), 161. 32. “Two Lenses: Academic Achievement,” Education Week 28, no. 17 (2009), January 8, http://www.edweek.org/media/ew/qc/2009/17academic.h28 .pdf (accessed December 30, 2012). 33. Monty Neill, “NAEP Exams Show Slowing or Stagnant Results for Most Demographic Groups, in Reading and Math, at All Grades/Ages, since the Start of NCLB,” National Center for Fair and Open Testing, http://www .fairtest.org/sites/default/files/NAEP_results_main_and_long_term.pdf, 1 (accessed January 4, 2013). 34. Claudio Sanchez “In D.C., Michelle Rhee may Answer for Suspect Scores,” National Public Radio, April 11, 2011, http://www.npr.org NOTES 219

/2011/04/11/135318957/in-d-c-michelle-rhee-may-answer-for-suspect -scores (accessed April 24, 2013). 35. “Michelle A. Rhee, Founder and CEO of StudentsFirst,” StudentsFirst, http://www.studentsfirst.org/pages/about-michelle-rhee (accessed August 2, 2013). 36. Valerie Strauss, “Why not Subpoena Everyone in D.C. Cheating Scandal— Rhee Included?” The Washington Post, April 12, 2013, http://www .washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/04/12/why-not -subpoena-everyone-in-d-c-cheating-scandal-rhee-included/ (a c c e s s e d August 2, 2013). 37. Chris Winstead, “Bill Gates on Increasing University Graduation Rates.” 38. MPR Associates, Inc. (August 2007). “Performance-Based Funding in Adult Education” (prepared for the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Vocational and Adult Education, Division of Adult Education and Literacy), http://www.mprinc.com/products/pdf/Performance_Based _Funding_in_Adult_Ed.pdf (accessed May 18, 2012). 39. National Reporting System, “Educational Gain,” NRS Implementation Guidelines Online, http://www.nrsonline.org/reference/index.html? chapter=2§ion=1&topic=1&subtopic=0 (accessed May 18, 2013). 40. Personal communication with an administrator in the program. 41. Josh Fischman, “Taking Apart the Deepwater Horizon Oil Slick,” The Chronicle of Higher Education (Washington, DC), July 3, 2012, http:// chronicle.com/blogs/percolator/taking-apart-an-oil-slick/29891 (accessed July 4, 2012). 42. Neil G. Ruiz, Jill H. Wilson, and Shyamali Choudhury, “The Search for Skills: Demand for H1-B Immigrant Workers in U.S. Metropolitan Areas,” Metropolitan Policy Program at the Brookings Institution, http://www .brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/reports/2012/7/18%20h1b%20 visas%20labor%20immigration/18%20h1b%20visas%20labor%20immigration .pdf (accessed March 24, 2013). 43. Thomas Friedman, The World Is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-First Century (New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 2005), 264. 44. Monica Rhor, “Rice Gives Students’ Writing Renewed Emphasis.” Houston Chronicle (Houston, TX), February 5, 2012, http://www.chron .com/news/houston-texas/article/Rice-gives-students-writing-renewed -emphasis-3055994.php (accessed March 9, 2012). 45. Ibid. 46. Institute of Education Sciences, “The Nations’ Report Card: Writing 2011,” September 2012, http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pubs/main 2011/2012470.asp#section1 (accessed February 1, 2013). 47. “Essential Steps for States,” Complete College America. 48. Sayre Quevedo, “N.M. to Favor Tests over Diplomas in Hiring,” National Public Radio, June 19, 2012, http://www.npr.org/2012/06/19/155380 960/n-m-to-favor-tests-over-diplomas-in-hiring (accessed July 3, 2012). 49. Dave Maney, “ ‘Badges’ Fill Credential Gaps where Higher Education Fails,” Denver Post (Denver, CO), April 1, 2012, http://www.denverpost .com/recommended/ci_20295793 (accessed April 5, 2012). 50. Emily Donaldson, “Higher Education Funding Bill to See Senate Floor Debate,” April 10, 2013, http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2013/04/10/higher -education-funding-bill-to-see-senate-floor-debate/ (accessed April 13, 2013). 220 NOTES

51. “Essential Steps for States,” Complete College America. 52. Richard P. Keeling and Richard H. Hersh, We’re Losing Our Minds: Rethinking American Higher Education (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011), vii. 53. Ibid., 12. 54. Lee Noel, Randi Levitz, and Diana Saluri, Increasing Student Retention: Effective Programs and Practices for Reducing the Dropout Rate (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1986). 55. Jon Marcus, “College Enrollment Shows Signs of Slowing,” Hechinger Report, May 31, 2012, http://hechingerreport.org/content/college-enrollment -shows-signs-of-slowing_8688/print/ (accessed July 3, 2012). 56. Sam Chaltain, “The World Is . . . a Sisyphean Hill of Policy Smackdowns?” Sam Chailtain Weblog, entry posted on October 22, 2012, http://www .samchaltain.com/the-world-is-a-sisyphean-hill-of-policy-smackdowns (accessed October 29, 2012). 57. Kevin Kiley, “Fewer Bucks, More Bang,” Inside Higher Ed (Washington, DC), January 29, 2013, http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/01/29 /colorado-shifts-focus-state-grant-affordability-completion (a c c e s s e d February 2, 2013). 58. Bob Violino, “Realistic Carrots for Institutional and Student Improvement,” Community College Times, July 11, 2012, http://www.communitycollege times.com/Pages/Funding/Realistic-carrots-for-institutional-student -improvement.aspx (accessed July 14, 2012). 59. “Get Rewarded for Your Safe Driving with Vanishing Deductible,” Nationwide, http://www.nationwide.com/vanishing-deductible.jsp (accessed February 3, 2012). 60. Hayley Kappes, “Partnership Urged on College Degrees,” El Paso Times (El Paso, TX), May 24, 2012, http://www.elpasotimes.com/news/ci _20696478/partnership-urged-college-degrees (accessed May 25, 2012).

5 The Revenue Reality 1. Stephen G. Katsinas, Terrence A. Tollefson, and Becky A. Reamey “Funding Issues in the U.S. Community Colleges: Findings from a 2007 Survey of the National State Directors of Community Colleges,” 2008, American Association of Community Colleges, http://www.aacc.nche.edu/Publications /Reports/Documents/fundingissues.pdf (accessed May 25, 2013). 2. Nicholas Johnson, Phil Oliff, and Erica Williams, “An Update on State Budget Cuts: At Least 46 States have Imposed Cuts that Hurt Vulnerable Residents and the Economy,” The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, February 9, 2011, http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=1214 (accessed May 25, 2013). 3. “Higher Education a Target for State Budget Cuts across Nation,” The Times-Picayune (New Orleans, LA), January 20, 2011, http://www.nola .com/politics/index.ssf/2011/01/higher_education_a_target_for.html (accessed December 23, 2012). 4. Eric Kelderman, “State Support for Colleges Falls 7.6% in 2012 Fiscal Year,” The Chronicle of Higher Education (Washington, DC), January 23, 2012, http://chronicle.com/article/article-content/130414/ (accessed January 27, 2012). NOTES 221

5. Jack Stripling, “Freezer Burn,” Inside Higher Ed (Washington, DC), January 19, 2010, http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/01/19 /tuition (accessed February 6, 2012). 6. David A. Lieb, “Governor Jay Nixon cuts $172 Million from Missouri Budget, Including Education Funding,” Missourian, (Columbia, MO), June 10, 2011, http://www.columbiamissourian.com/stories/2011/06/10 /update-gov-jay-nixon-cuts-172-million-missouri-budget-including -education-funding/ (accessed February 6, 2012). 7. “Nixon wants Colleges to Keep Tuition Hikes Minimal amid Cuts,” Associated Press, January 20, 2012, http://kbia.org/post/nixon-wants -colleges-keep-tuition-hikes-minimal-amid-cuts (accessed February 6, 2012). 8. Barack Obama, “Remarks by the President in State of the Union Address,” January 24, 2012, http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office /2012/01/24/remarks-president-state-union-address (accessed February 7, 2012). 9. Jane Wellman, “The Higher Education Funding Disconnect: Spending More, Getting Less,” Change, November–December 2008, http://www .changemag.org/Archives/Back%20Issues/November-December%20 2008/full-funding-disconnect.html (accessed January 12, 2012). 10. Thomas B. Edsall, “The Reproduction of Privilege,” The New York Times (New York, NY), March 12, 2012, http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes .com/2012/03/12/the-reproduction-of-privilege/ (accessed March 17, 2012). 11. Thomas B. Edsall, “The Reproduction of Privilege,” The New York Times (New York, NY), March 12, 2012, http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes .com/2012/03/12/the-reproduction-of-privilege/ (accessed March 17, 2012). 12. Tim Barker, “Minimal Changes to Pell Grant are Met with Relief,” January 3, 2012, St. Louis Post-Dispatch (St. Louis, MO), http://www.stltoday .com/news/local/education/minimal-changes-to-pell-grant-are-met-with -relief/article_b5c8c965–8265–5688-bca5–12cdbe9d4af4.html (accessed January 3, 2012). 13. Ibid. 14. Ibid. 15. Sean F. Reardon, “The Widening Achievement Gap between the Rich and the Poor: New Evidence and Possible Explanations,” in Whither Opportunity: Rising Inequality, Schools, and the Children’s Life Chances, ed. Greg J. Duncan and Richard J. Murnane (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2011), 1. 16. Henry Blodget, “America Today: 3 Million Overlords and 300 Million Serfs,” Business Insider, April 10, 2013, http://www.businessinsider.com/wealth -and-income-inequality-in-america-2013–4?op=1 (accessed May 25, 2013). 17. “Crisis Squeezes Income and Puts Pressure on Inequality and Poverty: New Results from the OECD Income Distribution Database,” Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2013, http://www.oecd.org/els /soc/OECD2013-Inequality-and-Poverty-8p.pdf (accessed June 3, 2013). 18. Richard Fry, “Minorities and the Recession-era College Enrollment Boom,” Pew Research Center, 2010, http://www.pewsocialtrends.org /2010/06/16/minorities-and-the-recession-era-college-enrollment -boom/ (accessed January 1, 2013). 222 NOTES

19. Al Franken as quoted in “JFF working for students’ ‘Ability to Benefit,’ ” Jobs for the Future Blog, June 18, 2012, http://www.jff.org/blog/2012/06/18 /jff-working-for-students-ability-to-benefit (accessed July 3, 2012). 20. “Senator Murray Introduces Bill to Help Low Income Students,” NBC Right Now, July 23, 2013, http://www.nbcrightnow.com/story/22911066 /senator-murray-introduces-bill-to-help-low-income-students (accessed July 28, 2013). 21. Kavitha Cardoza, “Graduation Rates Increase around the Globe as U.S. Plateaus,” American University Radio, February 21, 2012, http://wamu .org/news/morning_edition/12/02/21/graduation_rates_increase _around_the_globe_as_us_plateaus (accessed May 30, 2013). 22. Walter Brandimarte and Daniel Bases, “United States Loses Prized AAA Credit Rating from S&P,” Reuters, August 6, 2011, http://www .reuters.com/article/2011/08/06/us-usa-debt-downgrade-idUST RE7746VF20110806 (accessed December 12, 2012). 23. Luciana Lopez, “Analysis: U.S. Credit Rating could again take Hit in 2013.” Reuters, November14, 2012, http://www.reuters.com/article /2012/11/14/us-usa-fiscal-ratings-idUSBRE8AD1S420121114 (accessed December 21, 2012). 24. Kevin Carey, “A Radical Solution for America’s Worsening College Tuition Bubble,” The New Republic, January 10, 2012, http://www.newrepublic .com/article/politics/99415/college-tuition-afford-higher-education (accessed March 26, 2012). 25. “The Student Load ‘Debt Bomb’: America’s Next Mortgage-Style Economic Crisis?” The National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys, February 7, 2012, http://nacba.org/Portals/0/Documents/Student%20 Loan%20Debt/020712%20NACBA%20student%20loan%20debt%20 report.pdf (accessed December 21, 2012). 26. Ibid. 27. Mark Krantrowitz, “Total College Debt Exceeds Total Credit Card Debt,” Fastweb, August 1, 2012, http://www.fastweb.com/financial-aid /articles/2589-total-college-debt-now-exceeds-total-credit-card-debt (accessed November 25, 2012). 28. Jimmy Fallon, “Slow Jam the News with Barack Obama,” YouTube video from a performance televised by NBC on April 24, 2012, posted by “late night with Jimmy Fallon,” April 24, 2012, http://youtu.be/vAFQIci WsF4. 29. Jennifer Liberto, “Cheaper Student Loans after Senate Deal, for Now,” CNN Money, July 19, 2013, http://money.cnn.com/2013/07/19/news /economy/student-loans/index.html (accessed July 20, 2013). 30. Hadley Malcolm, “Millennials’ Ball-and-Chain: Student Loan Debt,” USA Today, July 1, 2013, http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personal finance/2013/06/30/student-loan-debt-economic-effects/2388189/ (accessed July 13, 2013). 31. Kevin Cary, “A Radical Solution for America’s Worsening College Tuition Bubble,” The New Republic, January 10, 2012, http://www.newrepublic .com/article/politics/99415/college-tuition-afford-higher-education (accessed March 26, 2012). 32. “U.S. Debt Clock,” http://www.usdebtclock.org/ (accessed July 21, 2013). NOTES 223

33. “Strong Performers and Successful Reformers in Education: Lessons from PISA for the United States,” Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2011, http://www.oecd.org/pisa/46623978.pdf, 28 (accessed May 22, 3013). 34. Heath Prince and Vickie Choitz, “The Credential Differential: The Public Return to Increasing Postsecondary Credential attainment,” Center for Postsecondary and Economic Success, April 2012, http://www.clasp.org /admin/site/publications/files/Full-Paper-The-Credential-Differential .pdf (accessed May 26, 2013). 35. Wayne Riddle, “A Discussion and Analysis of the ‘Ability to Benefit’ Provisions in Title IV.” The Journal of Student Financial Aid 16, no. 2 (1986): 4. 36. Ibid., 4–16. 37. Ibid., 4. 38. Ibid., 5. 39. Ibid., 6. 40. Ibid. 41. Ibid. 42. Ibid., 9. 43. William Celis, “Educators Criticize New Law Curbing Student Loan Defaults,” The New York Times (New York, NY), December 29, 1990. 44. US Department of Education, “Inspector General Spotlight,” Office of Inspector General: Washington DC. 1990, accessed via Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), ED322858, 4. 45. Ibid. 46. Stephen Burd, “Who has the ‘Ability to Benefit’?” The Chronicle of Higher Education (Washington, DC), January 12, 1996. 47. Charles E. Coe, Jr., “Final management information report,” Office of Inspector General, U.S. Department of Education, January 25, 2010, http:// www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oig/auditreports/fy2013/x18m0001 .pdf (accessed July 6, 2012). 48. Andrew Martin and Andrew W. Lehren, “A Generation Hobbled by the Soaring Cost of College,” New York Times (New York, NY), May 12, 2012, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/13/business/student-loans -weighing-down-a-generation-with-heavy-debt.html (accessed May 25, 2013). 49. George A. Scott, “Proprietary Schools: Improved Department of Education Oversight Needed to Help Ensure only Eligible Students Receive Federal Student Aid,” Testimony before the Subcommittee on Higher Education, Lifelong Learning and Competitiveness, Committee on Education and Labor, House of Representatives, United States Government Accountability Office, August 17, 2009, 2. 50. Ibid., 4.

6 Honoring the Letter and Spirit of Federal Student Aid 1. Rohit Chopra, “Too Big to Fail: Student Debt Hits a Trillion,” Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, March 21, 2012, http://www.consumer finance.gov/blog/too-big-to-fail-student-debt-hits-a-trillion/ (a c c e s s e d June 26, 2013). 224 NOTES

2. Andrew Martin and Andrew W. Lehren, “A Generation Hobbled by the Soaring Cost of College” The New York Times (New York, NY), May 12, 2012, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/13/business/student-loans -weighing-down-a-generation-with-heavy-debt.html (accessed May 16, 2012). 3. Kayla Webley, “Why Can’t You Discharge Student Loans in Bankruptcy?” Time, February 9, 2012, http://business.time.com/2012/02/09/why-cant -you-discharge-student-loans-in-bankruptcy/ (accessed May 26, 2013). 4. Martin and Lehren, “A Generation Hobbled by the Soaring Cost of College.” 5. Mandi Woodruff, “The US government will Make a Record $51 Billion off Student Loan Debt This Year,” Associated Press, May 15, 2013, http:// finance.yahoo.com/news/us-government-record-51-billion-150130111 .html (accessed May 15, 2013). 6. Anthony Carnevale, interview by Michel Martin, “Dropping out with student debt,” National Public Radio, June 12, 2012, http://www.npr .org/2012/06/12/154845323/dropping-out-with-debt (accessed July 3, 2012). 7. Jenna Ashley Robinson, “Encourage Bankruptcy, not Forgiveness, for Student Loans,” Inside Higher Ed (Washington, DC), December 7, 2012, http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2012/12/07/encourage-bank ruptcy-not-forgiveness-student-loans-essay (accessed December 8, 2012). 8. U.S. Department of Education, “Chapter 1: School-Determined Require- ments,” in “2012–2013 FSA Handbook with Active Index,” http://ifap .ed.gov/fsahandbook/attachments/1213FSAHandbookCompleteActiveIn dex.pdf, 1–4 (accessed January 12, 2013). 9. Ibid., 171. 10. Ibid., 172. 11. Ibid. 12. Ibid. 13. Course profile for the third-lowest developmental reading course in a sequence. 14. U.S. Department of Education, “Chapter 1: School-Determined Require- ments,” in “2012–2013 FSA Handbook with Active Index,” 1–6. 15. Ibid. 16. Ibid., 1–7. 17. Ibid. 18. Ibid., 1–6. 19. Ibid. 20. Tim Barker, “Minimal Changes to Pell Grant Are Met with Relief,” St. Louis Post-Dispatch (St. Louis, MO), Jan. 3, 2012, http://www.stltoday .com/news/local/education/minimal-changes-to-pell-grant-are-met -with-relief/article_b5c8c965–8265–5688-bca5–12cdbe9d4af4.html (accessed January 3, 2012). 21. U.S. Department of Education, “Chapter 1: School-Determined Require- ments,” in “2012–2013 FSA Handbook with Active Index,” 1–4. 22. Mark Schneider, as quoted in Catherine Groux, “Report questions how to address students who are not college ready,” U.S. News, May 2, 2012, http:// www.usnewsuniversitydirectory.com/articles/report-questions-how-to -address-students-who-are-n_12371.aspx#.UZvveGAo6M8 (accessed May 15, 2012). NOTES 225

23. David S. Baime and Christopher M. Mullin “Preventing Abuse in Federal Student Aid: Community College Practices,” American Association of Community Colleges, April 2012, http://www.aacc.nche.edu/Publications /Reports/Documents/Preventing_Abuse.pdf, 2 (accessed May 25, 2013). 24. Ibid. 25. Mary Beth Marklein, “Colleges Fight Fraud with More Coursework,” USA Today, May 1, 2012, http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/education /story/2012–04–27/colleges-fraud/54648668/1 (accessed January 21, 2013). 26. Baime and Mullin. April 2012. “Preventing Abuse in Federal Student Aid.” 27. Ibid., 3. 28. Ibid., 2. 29. April Clark, “Multi-Channel Marketing for Enrollment Development,” Enrollment Manager, 5, no. 1 (2009): http://www.dwyereducationstrategies .com/Article_Multi_Channel_Marketing.htm (accessed May 25, 2013). 30. Beth Lasater and Barbara Elliott. “Profiles of the Adult Education Target Population: Information from the 2000 Census,” U.S. Department of Education, Office of Vocational and Adult Education, Division of Adult Education and Literacy, December 2005, http://www2.ed.gov/about /offices/list/ovae/pi/AdultEd/census1.pdf (accessed January 12, 2013). 31. Personal communication with the officer on May 7, 2013. 32. Scott Jaschik, “Threats at Community Colleges,” Inside Higher Ed (Washington, DC), April 15, 2013, http://www.insidehighered.com/news /2013/04/15/recent-incidents-point-challenges-community-colleges-facing -safety-issues (accessed May 19, 2013). 33. Allie Grasgreen “Too many hats?” Inside Higher Ed (Washington, DC), January 19, 2012, http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/01/19 /community-college-counselors-face-challenges-survey-shows (accessed May 19, 2013). 34. Robert P. Gallagher, “National Survey of College Counseling,” American College Counseling, 2012, http://www.collegecounseling.org/wp-content /uploads/NSCCD_Survey_2012.pdf (accessed November 28, 2012). 35. Jaschik, “Threats at Community Colleges.” 36. Christine Byers and Jeremy Kohler, “St. Louis College Shooting Reveals Challenge of Finding Fugitives,” St. Louis Post-Dispatch (St. Louis, MO), January 17, 2013, http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/st-louis -college-shooting-reveals-challenge-of-finding-fugitives/article_e00353fe -33d3–54cc-8149–0933a33ffc9c.html (accessed January 17, 2013). 37. Tim Barker, “A Silent Campus in Downtown St. Louis Bears Echoes of Shooting,” St. Louis Post-Dispatch (St. Louis, MO), January 17, 2013, http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/education/a-silent-campus-in -downtown-st-louis-bears-echoes-of/article_c3a54289–4c8d-55fb-84f2 -c7d0b6720c48.html (accessed January 17, 2013).

7 The Disabilities Dilemma 1. Personal communication on January 6, 2013, with a special educator. 2. “Special Populations: Inclusion of Students with Disabilities in Exit Exams,” Education Commission of the States, 2008, http://mb2.ecs.org/reports /Report.aspx?id=1228 (accessed December 3, 2012). 226 NOTES

3. “Part B Data and Notes,” Data Accountability Center, https://www .ideadata.org/PartBData.asp (accessed December 20, 2012). 4. Education Commission of the States, “Special populations.” 5. “Part B Existing,” Data Accountability Center, https://www.ideadata.org /PartBExiting.asp and then download the 2010–2011 (accessed December 20, 2012). 6. Ibid. 7. Amy S. Guamer Erickson, Jeannie Kleinhammer-Tramill, and Martha L. Thurlow, “An Analysis of the Relationship between High School Exit Exams and Diploma Options and the Impact on Students with Disabilities,” Journal of Disability Policy Studies 18, no. 2 (2008): 120. 8. Ibid., 122. 9. Ibid., 124–125. 10. Ibid., 126. 11. Erickson, Kleinhammer-Tramill, and Thurlow, “An Analysis of the Relationship between High School Exit Exams and Diploma Options and the Impact on Students with Disabilities.” 12. Personal communication on June 2, 2013. 13. A Chronicle Forum, “Has Higher Education Become an Engine of Inequality?” The Chronicle of Higher Education (Washington, DC), July 2, 2012, http://chronicle.com/article/Has-Higher-Education-Become-an /132619/ (accessed July 14, 2012). 14. George Leef, “The Problem Is Elsewhere,” The Chronicle of Higher Education (Washington, DC), July 2, 2012, http://chronicle.com/article /The-Problem-is-Elsewhere/132629/ (accessed July 14, 2012). 15. Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, “Grading, Awarding Credit and Graduation for Students with Disabilities,” Focus on Issues in Special Education, http://dese.mo.gov/se/compliance/documents /GradingAwardingCreditGraduation.pdf (accessed May 23, 2013). 16. Personal communication on January 6, 2013, with a special educator. 17. Jonathan Marx and David Meeler, “Academic Forgiveness: The Price of Pardon.” The Chronicle of Higher Education (Washington, DC), June 10, 2013, http://chronicle.com/article/Academic-Forgiveness-the/139691 (accessed June 14, 2013). 18. Ibid. 19. Ibid. 20. Stephanie J. Monroe, “Dear Colleague Letter,” Office for Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Education, October 17, 2008, http://www2.ed.gov/about /offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-20081017.pdf (accessed March 13, 2013). 21. Ibid. 22. Ibid. 23. Ibid. 24. Personal communication on January 6, 2013, with a special educator. 25. Ibid. 26. Clive Belfield and Peter M. Crosta, “Predicting Success in College: The Importance of Placement Tests and High School Transcripts,” Community College Research Center, working paper no. 42, February 2012. 27. Larry D. Bartlett, Susan Etscheidt, and Greg R. Weisenstein, Special Education Law and Practice in Public Schools, 2nd ed. (Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education, 2007). NOTES 227

28. Kelly Henderson, “Overview of ADA, IDEA, and Section 504: Update 2001,” Clearinghouse on Disabilities and Gifted Education, http://www .ericdigests.org/2002–1/ada.html. 29. U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, “Chapter 1: The Road to ADA,” in “Sharing the Dream: Is the ADA Accommodating All?” October 2000, http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/ada/ch1.htm (accessed December 28, 2007). 30. Bartlett, Etscheidt, and Weisenstein, Special Education Law. 31. Section 504, 29 U.S.C., as cited in Mitchell L. Yellm The Law and Special Education, 2nd ed. (Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education, 2006), 117. 32. Audrey A. Trainor, “Using Cultural and Social Capital to Improve Postsecondary Outcomes and Expand Transition Models for Youth with Disabilities,” Journal of Special Education, 42 no. 3 (2008): 148–162. 33. U.S. Congress as cited in Larry D. Bartlett, Susan Etscheidt, and Greg R. Weisenstein, Special Education Law and Practice in Public Schools, 2nd ed. (Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education, 2007), 166. 34. Michael L. Wehmeyer, “Self-Determination and the Empowerment of People with Disabilities,” American Rehabilitation, Rehabilitation Services Administration, 22–29. 35. Susan Unok Marks, “Self-determination for Students with Intellectual Disabilities and Why I Want Educators to Know What It Means,” Phi Delta Kappan 90, no. 1 (2008): 55. 36. Michael L. Wehmeyer, “Self-Determination and the Empowerment of People with Disabilities” American Rehabilitation (Autumn 2004): 23. 37. Dalun Zhang, Michael L. Wehmeyer, and Li-Ju Chen, “Parent and Teacher Engagement in Fostering the Self-determination of Students with Disabilities: A Comparison between the United States and the Republic of China,” Remedial and Special Education 26 (2005): 55–64. 38. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997, Public Law #105–17, Sec. 687, 5E, ii, 105th Congress, June 4, 1997, 4. 39. Individuals with Disabilities Act Amendments of 2004, Public Law # 113–31, Part D, Sec. 682, c, 1, 108th Congress, 2004. 40. Duane F. Stroman, The Disability Rights Movement: From Deinstitutional- ization to Self-determination (Lanham: University Press of America, 2003), 213. 41. Ibid. 42. Meg Grigal, Debra Hart, and Maria Paiewonsky, “Postsecondary Education: The Next Frontier for Individuals with Intellectual Disabilities,” in Think College! Postsecondary Education Options for Students with Intellectual Disabilities, ed. Meg Grigal and Debra Hart (Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing, 2010), 9. 43. Ibid. 44. Data Accountability Center, “Part B Child Count,” https://www.ideadata .org/PartBChildCount.asp (accessed December 11, 2012). 45. U.S. Department of Education, “Eighteenth Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Act,” 1996, http://www2.ed.gov/pubs/OSEP96AnlRpt/chap3a.html (accessed June 25, 2013). 46. National Center for Education Statistics, “Fast Facts: Students with Disabilities,” 2012, http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=60 (accessed June 13, 2013). 228 NOTES

47. Lynn Newman, “Postsecondary Education Participation of Youth with Disabilities” in After High School: A First Look at the Postschool Experiences of Youth with Disabilities, ed. Mary Wagner, et al., U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, 2005, http://www .nlts2.org/reports/2005_04/nlts2_report_2005_04_complete.pdf, 4–17 (accessed December 29, 2012). 48. Stephanie Lee and Madeleine Will, “The Role of Legislation, Advocacy, and Systems Change in Promoting Postsecondary Opportunities for Students with Intellectual Disabilities,” in Think College! Postsecondary Education Options for Students with Intellectual Disabilities, ed. Meg Grigal and Debra Hart (Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing, 2010), 31. 49. Ibid. 50. Meg Grigal, Debra Hart, and Maria Paiewonsky, “Postsecondary Education: The Next Frontier for Individuals with Intellectual Disabilities,” in Think College! Postsecondary Education Options for Students with Intellectual Disabilities, ed. Meg Grigal and Debra Hart (Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing, 2010), 3. 51. Ibid., 4. 52. Laura Eisenman and Karen Mancini, “College Perspectives and Issues,” in Think College! Postsecondary Education Options for Students with Intellectual Disabilities, ed. Meg Grigal and Debra Hart (Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing, 2010), 183. 53. Ibid., 178. 54. Ibid. 55. Personal communication on October 13, 2009. 56. Personal communication with the student’s instructor on April 3, 2012. 57. Personal communication with the student’s instructor on April 5, 2012. 58. Personal communication with the instructor on March 28, 2013. 59. Personal communication with the instructor on March 28, 2013. 60. Debra Hart, et al., “Postsecondary Education Options for Students with Disabilities,” Research to Practice: Institute for Community Inclusion, August 2006, http://www.communityinclusion.org/pdf/rp45.pdf (accessed June 26, 2013). 61. Debra A. Neubert, Sherril M. Moon, and Meg Grigal, “Post-secondary Education and Transition Services for Students 18–21 with Significant Disabilities,” Focus on Exceptional Children, 34 no. 8 (2002): 1–9. 62. Juliet Lilledahl Scherer, “Developmental Reading Course Repeaters with Significant Cognitive Disabilities at the Community College: Evaluating Enrollment Motivations and Goals” (PhD diss., University of Missouri— St. Louis, 2010), 183. 63. Debra A. Neubert, Sherril M. Moon, and Meg Grigal, “Post-secondary Education and Transition Services for Students 18–21 with Significant Disabilities.” Focus on Exceptional Children, 34, no. 8 (2002): 4. 64. The Consortium for Postsecondary Education for Individuals with Developmental Disabilities, “Administration on Developmental Disabilities Establishes Project to Support Postsecondary Programs,” March, 2009, http://www.thinkcollege.net/newsletter-archives (accessed August 3, 2009). 65. Scherer, “Developmental Reading Course Repeaters,” 171. 66. Ibid. NOTES 229

67. Donna McKusick, Peter Adams, Katie Hern and Myra Snell, “The New Dev Ed: Accelerated, Contextualized, Supportive,” (presentation at D.R.E.A.M. 2012, Dallas, TX, February 28, 2012). 68. Ibid. 69. Correspondence with the administrative assistant shared by the supervising administrator on February 18, 2011. 70. Ibid. 71. Ibid. 72. Meg Grigal and Debra Hart. “Critical Components for Planning and Implementing Dual Enrollment and other Postsecondary Education Experiences,” in Think College! Postsecondary Education Options for Students with Intellectual Disabilities, ed. Meg Grigal and Debra Hart (Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing, 2010), 241. 73. “Fast Facts from our Fact Sheet,” American Association of Community Colleges, http://www.aacc.nche.edu/AboutCC/Pages/fastfactsfactsheet .aspx (accessed April 28, 2013). 74. Robert McCabe, No One to Waste: A Report to Public Decision-Makers and Community College Leaders (Washington, DC: Community College Press, 2000). 75. Hunter R. Boylan, What Works: Research-Based Best Practices in Develop- mental Education (Ranch, TX: Continuous Quality Improvement Network, 2002). 76. Ibid., 15. 77. Catherine Klein, et al., “Family Perspectives on Postsecondary Education,” ThinkCollege! Webinar, April 17, 2013, http://connectpro97884399.adobe connect.com/p6cbja4kqbk/ (accessed April 20, 2013). 78. “Supported Higher Education in Kentucky,” http://www.shepky.org/ (accessed April 20, 2013). 79. Catherine Klein, et al., “Family Perspectives on Postsecondary Education.” 80. Amy S. Gaumer, Mary E. Morningstar, and Gary M. Clark, “Status of Community-Based Transition Programs: A National Database,” Career Development for Exceptional Individuals 27 (2004): 131. 81. Alice C. Warren, “The Junior College District of St. Louis—St. Louis County, Missouri under the Leadership of Joseph P. Cosand, 1962–1971: A Study of the Impact of the Post World War II Milieu on Policies that Shaped the Institution” (PhD diss., St. Louis University, 1998).

8 The Access Effect 1. Ross Miller, “Lesser and Greater Expectations: The Wasted Senior Year and College-Level Study in High School,” Association of American Colleges and Universities (April 2001): 4. 2. Kevin Skelly and Scott Laurence, “Tracking College Readiness” The School Administrator 68, no. 6 (2011), http://www.aasa.org/SchoolAdministrator Article.aspx?id=19130 (accessed December 28, 2012). 3. Ibid. 4. Personal communication on June 8, 2013. 5. David W. Breneman and William N. Haarlow, Remediation in Higher Education (Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, 1998), 1–2. 230 NOTES

6. Robert M. Costrell, “Commentaries,” in Remediation in Higher Education, by David W. Breneman and William N. Haarlow (Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, 1998), 24. 7. National Commission on Excellence in Education, A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, 1983). 8. “Strong Performers and Successful Reformers in Education: Lessons from PISA for the United States,” Organisation for Co-operation and Economic Development, 2011, http://www.oecd.org/pisa/46623978.pdf, 14 (accessed May 22, 2013). 9. Ibid. 10. Ibid., 234. 11. Ibid., 235. 12. Ibid., 243. 13. Ibid., 14. 14. “Postsecondary Education Systems in Canada: An overview,” Canadian Information Centre for International Credentials, http://www.cicic.ca /421/an-overview.canada. 15. “Strong performers and successful reformers,” 65 (accessed May 24, 2013). 16. Ibid. 17. Ibid., 68. 18. “The Power of Ontario’s Provincial Testing Program,” Education Quality and Accountability Office, 2012, http://www.eqao.com/pdf_e/12/Power OntProv_TestingProg_en.PDF (accessed May 24, 2013). 19. Personal communication on May 23, 2013. 20. “Strong performers and successful reformers,” 243. 21. Ibid. 22. National Center of Education and the Economy, “Tough Choices or Tough Times: A Report by the New Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce,” 2007, 37. 23. Ibid., XXI. 24. Ibid., 51. 25. Ibid. 26. Ibid. 27. Ibid., XXII. 28. Ibid., 55. 29. Noah Berger, “Are Too Many Students Going to College?” The Chronicle of Higher Education (Washington, DC), November 8, 2009, http://chronicle .com/article/Are-Too-Many-Students-Going/49039/ (accessed January 27, 2012). 30. Ibid. 31. Christopher L. Washington, letter to the editor, “The benefits of Access Far Outweigh the Costs,” The Chronicle of Higher Education (Washington, DC), January 8, 2010. 32. Ibid. 33. Personal communication on April 26, 2013. 34. Personal communication on April 26, 2013. 35. Personal communication on December 8, 2012. 36. National Center on Education and The Economy, “What Does It Really Mean to be College and Work Ready?” May 2013, http://www.ncee.org NOTES 231

/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/NCEE_ExecutiveSummary_May2013 .pdf, 7 (accessed May 16, 2013). 37. Ibid., 8. 38. Arthur M. Cohen and Florence B. Brawer The American Community College, 4th ed. (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2003). 39. Jill Jacobs-Biden, “Student Retention at the Community College: Meeting Students’ Needs” (PhD diss. University of Delaware, Newark, DE, 2007), 3. 40. Paul Fain, “Low Bar, High failure,” Inside Higher Ed (Washington, DC), May 7, 2013, http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/05/07/community -college-students-struggle-meet-low-academic-standards-study-finds (accessed May 16, 2013). 41. Marc S. Tucker as quoted in Renee Schoof, “Remedial Math Classes Unnecessary at Community College Level, Study Says,” McClatchy Washington Bureau, May 7, 2013, http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013 /05/07/190496/remedial-math-classes-unnecessary.html (accessed May 7, 2013). 42. National Center on Education and The Economy, “What Does It Really Mean to be College and Work Ready?” May 2013, http://www.ncee.org /wp-content/uploads/2013/05/NCEE_ExecutiveSummary_May2013 .pdf, 9 (accessed May 16, 2013). 43. Mark Bauerlein, “What do U.S. College Graduates Lack? Professionalism,” Bloomberg, May 8, 2013, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013–05 –08/what-do-u-s-college-graduates-lack-professionalism.html (accessed May 15, 2013). 44. Chana Joffe-Walt, “Unfit for Work: The Starting Rise of Disability in America,” National Public Radio, http://apps.npr.org/unfit-for-work/ (accessed April 14, 2013). 45. Ibid. 46. “U.S. Debt Clock,” http://www.usdebtclock.org/current-rates.html (accessed June 13, 2013). 47. Daphna Oyserman, “Not Just any Path: Implications of Identity-Based Motivation for Disparities in School Outcomes” Economics of Education Review 33 (2013): 179–190, http://sitemaker.umich.edu/daphna.oyserman /files/oyserman_2013_economics_of_education_review.pdf (accessed April 27, 2013). 48. Debra D. Bragg and Brian Durham, “Perspectives on Access and Equity in the Era of (Community) College Completion.” Community College Review 40, no. 2 (2013): 106–125. 49. Richard Sander, Mismatch: How Affirmative Action Hurts Students It’s Intended to Help, and Why Universities Won’t Admit It (New York: Basic Books, 2012), 9. 50. Caroline M. Hoxby and Christopher Avery, “The Missing ‘One-Offs’: The Hidden Supply of High-Achieving, Low Income Students,” National Bureau of Economic Research, March 21, 2013, http://www.brookings .edu/~/media/projects/bpea/spring%202013/2013a_hoxby.pdf (accessed March 24, 2013). 51. Tribune-Review, “Fisher v. Texas: End Racial Preferences,” TribLive (Pittsburgh, PA), http://triblive.com/opinion/editorials/4176711–74 /fisher-preferences-racial#axzz2WY0Igztt (accessed June 18, 2013). 52. Richard Sander, Mismatch: How Affirmative Action Hurts Students, 282. 232 NOTES

53. Ibid., 283 54. Richard D. Kahlenberg and Halley Potter, “A Better Affirmative Action: State Universities that Created Alternatives to Racial Preferences,” A Century Foundation Report, October 3, 2012, http://tcf.org/work/education/detail /a-better-affirmative-action-state-universities-that-created-alternatives -to/ (accessed June 23, 2013). 55. Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, et al., U.S. Supreme Court (2012), http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11–345_l5gm.pdf (accessed June 24, 2013). 56. Anthony P. Carnevale and Jeff Strohl, “How Increasing College Access Is Increasing Inequality, and What to Do about It,” in Rewarding Strivers: Helping Low-Income Students Succeed in College, ed. Richard Kahlenberg (Washington, DC: The Century Foundation, Inc., 2010), 77. 57. William Elliott, et al., “Linking Savings and Educational Outcomes: Charting a Course for Scholarship and Policy,” Assets and Education Research Symposium Report, November 2012, https://assetsandedu.drupal .ku.edu/sites/assetsandedu.drupal.ku.edu/files/docs/Symposium%20 Report.pdf, 13 (accessed April 27, 2013).

9 Creating a New Admission Standard 1. Martha E. Casazza and Sharon L. Silverman, Learning Assistance and Developmental Education: A Guide for Effective Practice (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1996), 3. 2. National Center on Education and The Economy, “What Does It Really Mean to be College and Work Ready?” May 2013, http://www.ncee.org /wp-content/uploads/2013/05/NCEE_ExecutiveSummary_May2013 .pdf, ii (accessed May 16, 2013). 3. Ibid. 4. Marc S. Tucker as quoted in Paul Fain, Inside Higher Ed (Washington, DC), “Low Bar, High Failure,” May 7, 2013, http://www.insidehighered.com /news/2013/05/07/community-college-students-struggle-meet-low -academic-standards-study-finds (accessed May 16, 2013). 5. Ibid. 6. Ibid. 7. Kimberly Hefling, “Obama takes Tougher Stance on Higher Education,” Associated Press, February 20, 2012, http://www.washingtontimes.com /news/2012/feb/20/obama-takes-tougher-stance-higher-education/ (accessed February 21, 2012). 8. John Roueche and Suzanne Roueche, “Keeping the Promise: Remedial Education Revisited,” Community College Journal (April/May, 1999): 15. 9. Gary Hart, “Community Colleges’ Old Guard Resists Changes to Help Students Succeed,” Mercury News, December 3, 2011, http://www.mercury news.com/opinion/ci_19454203 (accessed December 5, 2011). 10. Personal communication with an administrator overseeing Pathways to Pima on April 2, 2012. 11. Jeff Selingo, “On Students’ Paths to College, Some Detours Are Desirable,” Chronicle of Higher Education (Washington, DC), November 26, 2012, http://chronicle.com/article/On-the-Path-to-College-Some/135910/ (accessed November 28, 2012). NOTES 233

12. Noah Berger, “Are Too Many Students Going to College?” Chronicle of Higher Education (Washington, DC), November 8, 2009, http://chronicle .com/article/Are-Too-Many-Students-Going/49039/ (accessed January 27, 2012). 13. Ibid. 14. Organisation for Co-operation and Economic Development, “Strong Performers and Successful Reformers in Education,” 254. 15. James Pellegrino as quoted in National Center on Education and the Economy, “Tough Choices or Tough Times: A Report by the New Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce,” 2007. 16. Ibid., 229. 17. Ibid., 231.

10 Providing Meaningful Postsecondary Options 1. Talking Points Memo.com, “Santorum: Obama ‘A Snob’ For Wanting Everyone To Go To College,” YouTube Video, posted by “c-span.org,” February 25, 2012, http://youtu.be/NkjbJOSwq3A (accessed December 1, 2012). 2. Ibid. 3. Ibid. 4. Alana Horowitz, “Rick Santorum: Obama Is ‘A Snob,’ ” The Huffington Post, February 25, 2012, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/25/rick -santorum-obama-snob-college_n_1301854.html (accessed March 17, 2012). 5. Barack Obama, “2012 State of the Union Address: Enhanced Version,” YouTube Video, 23:30, posted by “whitehouse,” January 24, 2012, http:// youtu.be/Zgfi7wnGZlE (accessed March 17, 2012). 6. Adam Peck, “Rick Santorum Apologizes for President Obama ‘Snob’ Comment, Calls It ‘Factually Inaccurate,’ ” ThinkProgress, April 25, 2012, http://thinkprogress.org/education/2012/04/25/470972/rick-santorum -retracts-snob/ (accessed April 25, 2012). 7. Robert McCartney, “Santorum’s ‘Snob’ Gaffe Offers a Sliver of Truth about College, The Washington Post (Washington, DC), March 3, 2012, http:// www.washingtonpost.com/local/santorums-snob-gaffe-offers-a-sliver -of-truth-about-college/2012/03/02/gIQAdXpZpR_story.html (accessed March 15, 2012). 8. Ibid. 9. Ibid. 10. Ibid. 11. Jeff Selingo, “On Students’ Paths to College, Some Detours are Desirable,” The Chronicle of Higher Education (Washington, DC), November 26, 2012, accessed November 28, 2012. http://chronicle.com/article/On-the-Path -to-College-Some/135910/ 12. John Kador, “The Perils of Scientific Illiteracy,” Chief Executive.net, February 1, 2012, http://chiefexecutive.net/the-perils-of-scientific-illiter acy# (accessed February 16, 2012). 13. U.S. Department of Labor, “Grants Totaling $474.5 Available from US Labor Department to Strengthen Partnerships between Community Colleges and Employers,” April 19, 2013, http://www.doleta.gov/taaccct /pdf/PR04192013.pdf (accessed April 26, 2013). 234 NOTES

14. Eun Kyung Kim, “Teens Enter Vocational School, Come Out with Jobs, No Debt,” April 26, 2013, Today Money, http://lifeinc.today.com /_news/2013/04/26/17928955-teens-enter-vocational-school-come -out-with-jobs-no-debt?lite (accessed April 26, 2013). 15. Finnish National Board of Education, “Vocational Education and Training System,” http://www.oph.fi/english/mobility/europass/finnish _education_system/vocational_education_and_training (accessed March 26, 2013). 16. Ibid. 17. Ibid. 18. Finnish National Board of Education, “Vocational Education and Upper Secondary Education, the Search 99 of 550 Applicants,” http://www.oph .fi/lehdistotiedotteet/2013/021 (accessed April 26, 2013). 19. Finnish National Board of Education, “Vocational Education and Training in Finland: Vocational Competence, Knowledge and Skills for Working Life and Further Studies,” http://www.oph.fi/download/131431_vocational _education_and_training_in_finland.pdf, 12 (accessed April 26, 2013). 20. Ibid. 21. Organisation for Co-operation and Economic Development, “Strong per- formers and successful reformers in education: Lessons from PISA for the United States,” 2011, http://www.oecd.org/pisa/46623978.pdf, 121 (accessed May 22, 3013). 22. Finnish National Board of Education, “Education Structure: Fundamental Principles,” http://www.oph.fi/english/education/overview_of_the _education_system (accessed March 26, 2013). 23. Ibid. 24. Anthony P. Carnevale, Nicole Smith, and Jeff Strohl, “Help Wanted: Projections of Jobs and Education Requirements through 2018,” Center on Education and the Workforce, Georgetown University, June, 2010, http:// www9.georgetown.edu/grad/gppi/hpi/cew/pdfs/FullReport.pdf, 1 (accessed April 27, 2013). 25. Ibid. 26. Harvard Graduate School of Education, “Pathways to Prosperity Network launches,” June 19, 2012, http://www.gse.harvard.edu/news -impact/2012/06/pathways-to-prosperity-network-launches/ (accessed April 27, 2013). 27. Ibid. 28. Ibid. 29. Harvard Graduate School of Education, “Pathways to Prosperity: Meeting the Challenge of Preparing Young Americans for the 21st Century,” February 2011, http://www.gse.harvard.edu/news_events/features/2011 /Pathways_to_Prosperity_Feb2011.pdf, 3 (accessed April 27, 2013). 30. Richard Vedder, Christopher Denhart, and Jonathon Robe, “Why are Recent College Graduates Underemployed?” Center for College Affordability and Productivity, http://centerforcollegeaffordability.org/uploads /Underemployed%20Report%202.pdf (accessed April 27, 2013). 31. “MoHealthWINs,” Missouri Community College Association, http:// mccatoday.org/mohealthwins/ (accessed December 27, 2012). 32. Anthony P. Carnevale, as cited in Mattias Gugel, “Community Colleges: Solution to the ‘Skills-Gap’ Problem?” Medill on the Hill, March 13, 2012, NOTES 235

http://medillonthehill.net/2012/03/community-colleges-solution-to -the-skills-gap-problem/ (accessed March 26, 2012). 33. Linda Hagedorn, as quoted in Tim Barker, “Colleges Look for Ways to Keep Students from Quitting before They Graduate,” St. Louis Post-Dispatch (St. Louis, MO), July 22, 2013, http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/educa tion/colleges-look-for-ways-to-keep-students-from-quitting-before/article _c3c1557b-f837–512f-be41–73f874bfb1fe.html (accessed July 22, 2013). 34. Bob Wood, “Ticket to Work: Why Certificates Build Careers and Boost Economic Success,” Community College Journal (December 2011/January 2012): 20–21. 35. Personal interview with the student on January 12, 2012. 36. Ibid. 37. Ibid. 38. Ibid. 39. Ibid. 40. Personal interview with the student on January 17, 2012. 41. Mike Rose, “Rethinking Remedial Education and the Academic Vocational Divide, Part II,” Mike Rose’s Blog, March 19, 2012, http://mikerosebooks .blogspot.com/2012/03/rethinking-remedial-education-and_19.html (accessed March 19, 2012). 42. Jennifer Engle and Traci Kirtley, “Clearing the Hurdles: Helping Low-Income Students get into College,” Education Week Webinar, August 17, 2011. 43. Ibid. 44. Mike Rose, “Rethinking Remedial Education.” 45. Kent Farnsworth, “The 4 Lessons that Community Colleges Can Learn from For-Profit Institutions,” The Chronicle of Higher Education (Washington, DC), October 27, 2006, http://chronicle.com/article/The -4-Lessons-That-Community/31387 (accessed December 6, 2006). 46. Jobs for the Future, “Breaking Through: Helping Low-Skilled Adults Enter and Succeed in College and Careers, http://www.jff.org/projects/current /workforce/breaking-through/20 (accessed December 27, 2012). 47. Jobs for the Future, “Funders,” http://www.jff.org/funders (accessed December 27, 2012). 48. Breaking Through, “Strategies to Success,” http://www.breakingthroughcc .org/overview/strategies-to-success (accessed December 27, 2012). 49. Jobs for the Future, “ABE to Credential: A Breaking Through Initiative,” http://www.jff.org/projects/current/education/abe-credentials/1172 (accessed December 27, 2012). 50. League for Innovation in the Community College, “Career Pathways as a Systemic Framework: Rethinking Education for Student Success in College and Careers,” 2007, http://www.league.org/league/projects/ccti/files /Systemic_Framework.pdf (accessed December 27, 2012). 51. “Skills for Worker Advancement and Economic Growth,” http://www .shifting-gears.org/ (accessed December 27, 2012). 52. Minnesota fastTRAC, “Local Minnesota FastTRAC Adult Career Pathway Programs,” http://www.mnfasttrac.org/programs.html (accessed February 6, 2013). 53. Office of Community College Research and Leadership, “About PTR,” University of Illinois, http://occrl.illinois.edu/projects/pathways/about -ptr/ (accessed December 28, 2012). 236 NOTES

54. “Illinois Bridge Definitions and Core Elements,” http://www.shifting -gears.org/state-progress-/78-bridge-definition-and-core-elements-.html (accessed December 27, 2012). 55. J. L. Taylor and T. Harmon, “Bridge Programs in Illinois: Results of the 2010 Illinois Bridge Status Survey,” Office of Community College Research and Leadership, University of Illinois, http://occrl.illinois.edu/files/Projects /shifting_gears/Report/IL_Bridge_Status_Survey_Report.pdf (accessed December 27, 2012). 56. Ibid. 57. Davis Jenkins, Shanna Smith Jaggars, and Josipa Roksa, “Promoting Gatekeeper Course Success Among Community College Students Needing Remediation” Community College Research Center, November, 2009, http://ccrc.tc.columbia .edu/Publication.asp?UID=714, 14 (accessed November 28, 2012). 58. Hunter Boylan, “Exploring Alternatives to Remediation,” Journal of Developmental Education 22, no. 3 (1999). 59. Hunter Boylan, “Forging New Partnerships: Adult & Developmental Education in Community Colleges” Council for Advancement of Adult Literacy, Working Paper 8, December 2004. 60. Office of Vocational and Adult Education, “Adult Education and Literacy,” U.S. Department of Education, http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list /ovae/pi/AdultEd/index.html (accessed January 4, 2013). 61. Hunter Boylan, “Forging New Partnerships.” 62. Ibid., 9. 63. Personal communication on April 9, 2012, in St. Louis, Missouri. 64. Ibid. 65. Hunter Bolyan, “Targeted Intervention for Developmental Education Students (T.I.D.E.S.)” Journal of Developmental Education 32, no. 3 (2009): 14–23. 66. Hunter Boylan and Amy Trawick, “Exploring Campus and Community Partnerships for Student Transition and Success” (presentation for the Annual conference for the National Association for Developmental Education, Orlando, FL, February 22, 2012). 67. Ibid. 68. Personal communication, January 31, 2012. 69. Matthew Miller, “Recession puts Michigan’s Focus on Adult Ed Reforms,” Lansing State Journal (Lansing, MI), June 19, 2010, http://www.lansing statejournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=20106200551&nclick _check=1 (accessed May 28, 2012). 70. Marcie Foster, “Adult education funding levels and enrollment,” Center for Postsecondary and Economic Success, February 2012, http://www.clasp .org/admin/site/publications/files/adult-ed-funding-enrollment-February -2012.pdf (accessed January 3, 2012). 71. Lennox McClendon, “Adult Student Waiting List Survey: 2009–2010 NCSDAE” National Council of State Directors of Adult Education, http://www.naepdc.org/publications/2010%20Adult%20Education%20 Waiting%20List%20Report.pdf (accessed January 5, 2013). 72. Marcie Foster, “With Budgets Slashed, Adult Education Programs Struggle to Keep the Lights On,” Center for Postsecondary and Economic Success, February 21, 2012, http://www.clasp.org/postsecondary/in_focus?id=0054 (accessed on January 5, 2013). 73. Ibid. NOTES 237

74. U.S. Department of Labor, “Grant Awards,” http://www.doleta.gov/taaccct /grantawards.cfm (accessed January 5, 2013). 75. Motoko Rich, “Federal Funds to Train the Jobless Are Drying Up,” The New York Times (New York, NY), April 8, 2012, http://www.nytimes.com /2012/04/09/business/economy/federal-funds-to-train-jobless-are-drying -up.html (accessed April 26, 2012). 76. Catherine Rampell, “Where the Jobs Are, the Training may Not be,” The New York Times (New York, NY), March 1, 2012, http://www.nytimes.com /2012/03/02/business/dealbook/state-cutbacks-curb-training-in-jobs -critical-to-economy.html (accessed March 3, 2012). 77. David W. Brenneman and William N. Haarlow, “Remediation in Higher Education.” Fordham Report 2, no. 9 (1998): 19. 78. Ibid., 20. 79. Boylan and Trawick, “Exploring Campus and Community Partnerships.” 80. Accessed on March 25, 2013. 81. Finnish National Board of Education, “Vocational Education and Training in Finland.” 82. Ibid., 10. 83. Finnish National Board of Education, “Preparatory Instruction and Guidance,” 2011, http://www.edu.fi/download/132290_brochure_pre paratory_instruction_and_guidance.pdf, 11 (accessed April 26, 2013). 84. Finnish National Board of Education, “Vocational Education and Training in Finland,” 14. 85. Temple Grandin, (keynote address, Annual conference for the National Association for Developmental Education,. Denver, CO, February 28, 2013). 86. Ibid. 87. Ibid. 88. Ibid. 89. Ibid. 90. Lauren Silverman, “Young Adults with Autism can Thrive in High-Tech Jobs,” National Public Radio, April 22, 2013, http://www.npr.org/blogs /health/2013/04/22/177452578/young-adults-with-autism-can-thrive -in-high-tech-jobs (accessed April 23, 2013). 91. Lydia Zuraw, “Kids with Autism Quick to Detect Motion,” National Public Radio, May 10, 2013, http://m.npr.org/news/Health/182717089 (accessed May 15, 2013). 92. Chris Tachibana, “Autism Seen as Asset, Not Liability, in some Jobs,” NBC News, December 8, 2009, http://www.nbcnews.com/id/34047713/ns /health-mental_health/t/autism-seen-asset-not-liability-some-jobs/ (accessed May 22, 2013). 93. Silverman, “Young Adults with Autism can Thrive in High-Tech Jobs.” 94. Associated Press, “German Software Firm SAP to Recruit Hundreds of People with Autism for Specialist Positions,” The Washington Post (Washington, DC), May 21, 2013, http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology /german-software-firm-sap-to-recruit-hundreds-of-people-with-autism -for-specialist-positions/2013/05/21/881d6334-c235–11e2–9642 -a56177f1cdf7_story.html (accessed May 22, 2013). 95. Project SEARCH, “High School Transition Program,” http://www.project search.us/OurPROGRAM/HighSchoolTransition.aspx (accessed May 5, 2013). 238 NOTES

96. Project SEARCH, “Program Model Fidelity,” http://www.projectsearch .us/OurPROGRAM/ProgramModel.aspx (accessed May 5, 2013). 97. Project SEARCH, “Find a Program in Your Area,” http://www.project search.us/GetINVOLVED/FindaProgram.aspx (accessed May 5, 2013). 98. Project SEARCH, “Quotes from Project SEARCH partners and par- ticipants,” http://www.projectsearch.us/OurSUCCESSES/Quotes.aspx (accessed May 5, 2013). 99. Lynn Barnett and Carol Jeandron with Madeline Patton, “Enriched & Inspired: Service Pathways to College Success,” 2009, A report from Project Read: Service Inclusion for Students with Disabilities, American Association of Community Colleges, 6. 100. Ibid., 29. 101. The National Task Force on Civic Learning and Democratic Engagement, A Crucible Moment: College Learning and Democracy’s Future (Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities), vii. 102. Ibid., vi. 103. Ibid. 104. Ibid. 105. Ibid. 106. Ibid. 107. Ibid. 108. Lewis and Clark Community College, “College for Life Course Descriptions: Spring 2012,” received November 10, 2011 during a site visit. 109. Personal communication on November 10, 2011, in Godfrey, Illinois. 110. Kathy Haberer as quoted in Kathie Bassett, “LCCC Offerings for Disabled Students Cited,” The Telegraph, July 30, 2012, http://www.thetelegraph .com/news/local/article_d589201c-da97–11e1–98cd-0019bb30f31a.html (accessed August 9, 2012). 111. Personal communication on May 29, 2013. 112. Richard Luecking, “Preparing for What? Postsecondary Education, Employment, and Community Participation” in Think College! Postsecondary Education Options for Students with Intellectual Disabilities, ed. Meg Grigal and Debra Hart (Baltimore, MD: Paul Brookes Publishing Co., 2010), 275. 113. Higher Education Opportunity Act—2008, Public Law 110–315, Sec. 760, 110th Congress, August 14, 2008, http://www.ed.gov/policy/highered /leg/hea08/index.html, 285 (accessed July 21, 2009). 114. Ibid., 285. 115. Ibid. 116. U.S. Department of Education, “Chapter 1: School-Determined Requirements,” in “2012–2013 FSA Handbook with Active Index,” http:// ifap.ed.gov/fsahandbook/attachments/1213FSAHandbookCompleteActive Index.pdf, 1–5 (accessed January 12, 2013). 117. Ibid., 1–4. 118. Ibid., 1–7. 119. Ibid. 120. Higher Education Opportunity Act—2008, Public Law 110–315, Sec. 760, 110th Congress, August 14, 2008, http://www.ed.gov/policy/highered/leg /hea08/index.html, 289 (accessed July 21, 2009). 121. Ibid., 290. NOTES 239

122. Ibid. 123. Think College! “National Coordinating Center,” http://www.thinkcollege .net/about-us/think-college-grant-projects/national-coordinating-center (accessed February 10, 2013). 124. Think College, “Transition and Postsecondary Programs for Students with Intellectual Disabilities (TPSID),” http://www.thinkcollege.net/images /stories/TPSID%20List%20(table).pdf (accessed February 10, 2012). 125. Think College, “List of Comprehensive Transition and Postsecondary Programs,” E-News, http://www.thinkcollege.net/april-may-2012/list-of -comprehensive-transition-and-postsecondary-programs-grows. 126. Luke 12:48, The Holy Bible, The New King James Version. 127. J. Dwight Pentecost, Parables of Jesus: Lessons in Life from the Master Teacher. Kindle edition (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1982), location 808/1856. 128. Dale Chapman as quoted in Kathie Bassett, “LCCC Offerings for Disabled Students Cited,” The Telegraph, July 30, 2012, http://www.thetelegraph .com/news/local/article_d589201c-da97–11e1–98cd-0019bb30f31a.html (accessed August 9, 2012).

11 The Equity/Excellence Enrosque 1. Lumina Foundation, “A Stronger Nation through Higher Education: Visualizing Data to Help Us Achieve a Big Goal for College Attainment,” An Annual Report from the Lumina Foundation, 2013, http://www.lumina foundation.org/stronger_nation_2013/downloads/pdfs/a-stronger -nation-2013.pdf (accessed June 24, 2013). 2. Heath Prince and Vickie Choitz, “The Credential Differential: The Public Return to Increasing Postsecondary Credential Attainment,” April 2012, http://www.clasp.org/admin/site/publications/files/Full-Paper-The -Credential-Differential.pdf (accessed December 27, 2012). 3. National Center on Education and the Economy, “Tough Choices or Tough Times: A Report by the New Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce,” 2007. 4. Lumina Foundation, “A Stronger Nation through Higher Education: How and Why Americans Must Achieve a Big Goal for College Attainment,” A Special Report from the Lumina Foundation, 2012, http://www.lumina foundation.org/publications/A_Stronger_Nation-2012.pdf (a c c e s s e d December 19, 2012). 5. Lumina Foundation, “A Stronger Nation through Higher Education: Visualizing Data.” 6. Rita Giordano, “Community Colleges’ Crunch Time,” The Inquirer, April 22, 2012, http://articles.philly.com/2012–04–22/news/31382660_1 _community-colleges-graduate-more-students-high-school-diploma (accessed April 26, 2012). 7. Kay McClenney, as quoted in Rita Giordano, “Community Colleges’ Crunch Time,” The Inquirer, April 22, 2012, http://articles.philly.com /2012–04–22/news/31382660_1_community-colleges-graduate-more -students-high-school-diploma (accessed April 26, 2012). 8. Jennifer Gonzalez, “Multiyear Study of Community-College Practices Asks: What Helps Students Graduate?” The Chronicle of Higher Education 240 NOTES

(Washington, DC), February 2, 2012, http://chronicle.com/article /Community-College-Study-Asks-/130606/ (accessed February 1, 2013). 9. Ibid. 10. James Traub, City on a Hill (Boston: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1994), 180. 11. Alexandria Walton Radford, et al., “Persistence and Attainment of 2003–04 Beginning Postsecondary Students: After 6 Years,” National Center for Education Statistics (Washington, DC), http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch /pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2011151 (accessed December 29, 2012). 12. Heath Prince and Vickie Choitz. April 2012. “The Credential Differential: The Public Return to Increasing Postsecondary Credential Attainment,” Center for Postsecondary and Economic Success, April 2012, http://www .clasp.org/admin/site/publications/files/Full-Paper-The-Credential -Differential.pdf, 3 (accessed December 27, 2012). 13. Mark Schneider and Lu (Michelle) Yin, “The Hidden Costs of Community Colleges,” Association for Institutional Research, October 2011, http:// www.air.org/files/AIR_Hidden_Costs_of_Community_Colleges_Oct 2011.pdf (accessed November 25, 2012). 14. American Association of Community Colleges, “Fast Facts from Our Fact Sheet,” http://www.aacc.nche.edu/AboutCC/Pages/fastfactsfactsheet.aspx (accessed April 28, 2013). 15. Arthur M. Cohen and Florence B. Brawer, The American Community College, 4th ed. (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2003). 16. Schneider and Yin, “Hidden Costs,” 14. 17. Traub, City on a Hill. 18. Lumina Foundation, “A Stronger Nation through Higher Education: Visualizing Data.” 19. Cohen and Brawer, The American Community College, 408. 20. Jo-Carol Fabianke as quoted in Melissa Ludwig, “’Tracking’ revived at community colleges,” San Antonio Express (San Antonio, TX), January 21, 2012, http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/education/article/Tracking -revived-at-community-colleges-969326.php (accessed November 28, 2012). 21. Craig Hadden, “The Ironies of Mandatory Placement,” Community College Journal of Research & Practice 24, no. 10 (2010): 823 22. “George W. Bush’s Speech to the NAACP,” The Washington Post (Washington, DC), July 10, 2000, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv /onpolitics/elections/bushtext071000.htm (accessed on December 11, 2012). 23. To close the achievement gap with accountability, flexibility, and choice, so that no child is left behind, Public Law #107–110, 107th Congress, January 8, 2002, http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/107–110.pdf (accessed December 11, 2012). 24. Chris Myers Asch, “What Message Does College for All Send?” in “Beyond One-Size-Fits-All College Dreams: Alternative Pathways to Desirable Careers,” American Educator (Fall 2010): 9. 25. Ibid. 26. Ibid. 27. Martha C. White, “In the Math of Education, Two Years Sometimes Is worth More than Four Years,” Today Money, http://lifeinc.today.com NOTES 241

/_news/2012/12/30/16193094-in-the-math-of-education-two-years -sometimes-is-worth-more-than-four-years?lite (accessed December 31, 2012). 28. Anthony P. Carnevale, Tamara Jayasundara, and Andrew R. Hanson, “Five Ways that Pay Along the Way to the B.A,” September 18, 2012, http://cew .georgetown.edu/ctefiveways/ (accessed May 31, 2013). 29. Bob Blaisdell, “Pride and Persistence,” Inside Higher Ed (Washington, DC), March 15, 2013, http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2013/03/15 /essay-teaching-student-who-may-never-pass (accessed April 14, 2013). 30. Ibid. 31. Ibid. 32. Personal communication on November 9, 2012. 33. James E. Rosenbaum, Regina Deil-Amen, and Ann E. Person, After Admission: From College Access to College Success (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2006), 21. 34. John Dewey, The School and Society, 2nd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1915), 3. 35. James E. Rosenbaum, Regina Deil-Amen, and Ann E. Person, After Admission. 36. John Dewey, The School and Society, 3. 37. Ibid., 3–4. 38. James E. Rosenbaum, Regina Deil-Amen, and Ann E. Person, After Admission. 39. Jeff Selingo, “On Students’ Paths to College, Some Detours are Desirable,” The Chronicle of Higher Education (Washington, DC), November 26, 2012, http://chronicle.com/article/On-the-Path-to-College-Some/135910/ (accessed November 28, 2012). 40. Ibid. 41. Gunder Myran, “Campus wide Inclusiveness: Ensuring Equity for Diverse Students,” in Reinventing the Open Door: Transformational Strategies for Community Colleges, ed. Gunder Myran (Washington, DC: Community College Press, 2009), 57. 42. Kristin Kloberdanz, “Please, Don’t Overlook Us: Gifted Kids ‘Languish’ in Failing Schools,” Take Part, December 13, 2012, http://www .takepart.com/article/2012/12/14/gifted-kids-failing-schools (a c c e s s e d December17, 2012). 43. U.S. Department of Education, “Jacob K. Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education Program,”http://www2.ed.gov/programs/javits/index .html (accessed December 26, 2012). 44. Nirvi Shah, “Gifted Programs Aim to Regain Budget Toehold; Efforts Lack Obama Administration’s Backing,” Education Week, May 16, 2012, http:// www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2012/05/16/31gifted.h31.html (accessed May 16, 2012). 45. Nancy Harris, “We Must Do More for Our Gifted Kids,” Take Part, March 26, 2013, http://www.takepart.com/article/2013/03/26/gifted-kids-we -must-do-more (accessed April 14, 2013). 46. Joseph Renzulli as quoted in Kristin Kloberdanz, “Please, Don’t Overlook Us: ‘Languish’ in Failing Schools,” Take Part, December 14, 2012, http:// www.takepart.com/article/2012/12/14/gifted-kids-failing-schools (accessed April 14, 2013). 242 NOTES

47. The Education Trust, “About the Education Trust,” http://www.edtrust .org/dc/about (accessed May 18, 2013). 48. Marni Bromberg and Christina Theokas, “Breaking the Glass Ceiling of Achievement for Low-Income Students and Students of Color,” The Education Trust, May 2013, http://www.edtrust.org/sites/edtrust.org /files/Glass_Ceiling_0.pdf (accessed May 18, 2013). 49. Nirvi Shah, “Gifted Programs Aim to Regain Budget Toehold.” 50. Ramona C. Sanders, “Collinsville 5-year-Old Is a Mensa Member,” St. Louis Post-Dispatch (St. Louis, MO), April 24, 2013, http://www.stl today.com/suburban-journals/illinois/education/collinsville--year-old-is -a-mensa-member/article_de41c413–41a4–52ae-ad0a-9be969f0a484 .html (accessed April 24, 2013). 51. Chris Campbell, “Honors Students Suffer,” Meramec Montage, August 30, 2012, http://www.meramecmontage.com/opinions/honors-students -suffer/ (accessed November 28, 2012). 52. Ashley Higgenbotham, “Meyer Steps Down from Honor Role,” Meramec Montage, September 12, 2012, http://www.meramecmontage.com/news /meyer-steps-down-from-honor-role/ (accessed November 28, 2012). 53. Daniel de Vise, “Two-Year Colleges Draw More Affluent Students,” The Washington Post ( Wa s h i n g t o n , D C ) , N o v e m b e r 2 , 2 01 2 , http://articles.washing tonpost.com/2011–11–02/local/35282029_1_public-two-year-colleges -community-college-roanoke-college (accessed November 28, 2012). 54. An Act Concerning College Readiness and Completion, State of Connecticut, Public Act # 12–40, May 31, 2012, http://cga.ct.gov/2012/ACT/PA /2012PA-00040-R00SB-00040-PA.htm (accessed June 11, 2013). 55. Dolores Perin “Can Community Colleges Protect Both Access and Standards? The Problem of Remediation,” Teachers College Record 108, no. 3 (2006): 339–373. 56. Personal communication on December 7, 2012. 57. Thomas Bailey, Katherine Hughes, and Shanna Smith Jaggars, “Law Hamstrings College Remedial Programs,” The Courant (Hartford, CT), May 18, 2012, http://articles.courant.com/2012–05–18/news/hc-op-bailey -college-remedial-education-bill-too-r-20120518_1_remedial-classes -community-college-research-center-remedial-education (accessed May 21, 2012). 58. Ibid. 59. Data Accountability Center: Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Data, “Part B Exiting,” https://www.ideadata.org/PartBExiting.asp (accessed January 4, 2012). 60. Juliet Lilledahl Scherer, “Developmental Reading Course Repeaters with Significant Cognitive Disabilities at the Community College: Evaluating Enrollment Motivations and Goals” (PhD diss., University of Missouri— St. Louis, 2010). 61. Cohen and Brawer, The American Community College, 400. 62. Ibid., 388. 63. Ibid., 388–389. 64. Ibid., 389. 65. Ibid., 390. 66. Ibid., 393–394. 67. Ibid., 398–399. NOTES 243

12 The Impact of Global Competition 1. As quoted in Mirra Anson, “Campus Influence of International Students’ Perceptions of the United States” (PhD diss., University of Missouri-St. Louis, 2011), 10. 2. “Open Doors, International Students in the U.S.: Fast Facts, 2008,” http:// opendoors.iienetwork.org/ (accessed January 11, 2009). 3. Ibid. 4. Phillip Altbach, Higher Education Crosses Borders, Change 36, no. 2 (2004): 18–24. 5. National Association of International Educators, “Restoring U.S. Competitiveness for International Students and Scholars” 2006, http:// www.nafsa.org/uploadedFiles/NAFSA_Home/Resource_Library_Assets /Public_Policy/restoring_u.s.pdf?n=8823 (accessed November 4, 2008). 6. National Commission on Excellence in Education, A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, 1983), 7. 7. Robert H. McCabe, No One to Waste: A Report to Public Decision-Makers and Community College Leaders (Washington, DC: Community College Press, 2000). 8. U.S. Department of Education, “A Test of Leadership: Charting the Future of U.S. Higher Education,” A Report of the Commission Appointed by Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings. 2006, http://www.ed.gov/about /bdscomm/list/hiedfuture/reports/final-report.pdf, 7 (accessed May 14, 2009). 9. Ibid. 10. National Center on Education and the Economy, “Tough Choices or Tough Times: A Report by the New Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce,” 2007, XIX. 11. Anya Kamenetz, “Dropouts: College’s 37-Million-Person Crisis—and How to Solve It,” The Atlantic, December 5, 2012, http://www.theatlantic .com/business/archive/2012/12/dropouts-colleges-37-million-person -crisis-and-how-to-solve-it/265916/ (accessed December 10, 2012). 12. Stacie Nevadomski Berdan, “Globally Competitive Does Not Mean Globally Competent,” May 22, 2012, http://www.huffingtonpost.com /stacie-nevadomski-berdan/american-education-global_b_1536261.html (accessed June 13, 2013). 13. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, “Programme for International Students Assessment (PISA) Results from PISA 2012. Country Note: United States,” 2013, http://www.oecd.org/pisa/keyfind ings/PISA-2012-results-US.pdf, (accessed December 4, 2013) 14. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, “Strong Performers and Successful Reformers in Education: Lessons from PISA for the United States,” 2011, http://www.oecd.org/pisa/46623978.pdf, 26 (accessed May 22, 2013). 15. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, “Strong Performers and Successful Reformers in Education: Lessons from PISA for the United States,” 2011, http://www.oecd.org/pisa/46623978.pdf, 29 (accessed May 22, 2013). 16. Ibid. 244 NOTES

17. Ibid. 18. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, “Strong Performers and Successful Reformers in Education: Lessons from PISA 2012 for the United States,” 2013, http://www.oecd.org/pisa/keyfindings /PISA2012_US%20report_ebook(eng).pdf, (accessed December 4, 2013) 19. Fareed Zakaria. The Post-American World (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., 2008), 2. 20. National Center for Education Statistics, “TIMSS 2011 Results, Institute of Education Sciences, http://nces.ed.gov/Timss/results11.asp (accessed June 27, 2013). 21. U.S. Department of Education, “What the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) Means for Systemic School Improvement,” http://www2.ed.gov/PDFDocs/timssbrief.pdf (accessed May 30, 2013). 22. Center for American Progress, “The Competition that Really Matters,” http://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08 /USChinaIndiaEduCompetitiveness.pdf (accessed June 10, 2013). 23. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, “Viewing the Education in the United states Through the Prism of PISA,” http://www .oecd.org/unitedstates/46579895.pdf (accessed June 7, 2013). 24. Anu Partanen, “What Americans Keep Ignoring about Finland’s Success,” The Atlantic, December 29, 2011, http://www.theatlantic.com/national /archive/2011/12/what-americans-keep-ignoring-about-finlands-school -success/250564/ (accessed January 21, 2013). 25. Ibid. 26. Ibid. 27. National Math and Science Initiative, “STEM Crisis,” http://nms.org /Education/TheSTEMCrisis.aspx (accessed June 7, 2013). 28. Ibid. 29. National Math and Science Initiative, “Why STEM Education Matters,” http://nms.org/Portals/0/Docs/Why%20Stem%20Education%20 Matters.pdf (accessed June 7, 2013). 30. Ibid. 31. Lane Wallace, “Innovation Isn’t about Math, The Atlantic, January 28, 2011, http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/01/innovation -isnt-about-math/70402/ (accessed June 13, 2013). 32. “Key Points about the Benefits of Foreign Language Learning to Include in Letters to Legislators,” Center for Applied Second Language Studies, University of Oregon, http://casls.uoregon.edu/roadmap/resources/data /RoadmapTalkingPoints.pdf (accessed June 14, 2013). 33. Terrence G. Wiley, Sarah Catherine Moore, and Margaret S. Fee, “A ‘Language for Jobs’ Initiative,” Council of Foreign Relations, http://www .cfr.org/united-states/languages-jobs-initiative/p28396http://www.cfr .org/united-states/languages-jobs-initiative/p28396 (accessed June 10, 2013). 34. David Skorton and Glenn Altschuler, “America’s Foreign Language Deficit,” Forbes, August 27, 2012, http://www.forbes.com/sites/collegeprose/2012 /08/27/americas-foreign-language-deficit/ (accessed June 10, 2013). 35. Alliance for International Educational and Cultural Exchange, “President Obama on the Importance of Foreign Language,” August 22, 2011, http:// www.alliance-exchange.org/policy-monitor/08/22/2011/president -obama-importance-foreign-languages (accessed June 10, 2013). NOTES 245

36. Skorton and Altschuler, “America’s Foreign Language Deficit.” 37. Ibid. 38. The National Institute on Educational Governance, Finance, Policymaking, and Management. “What the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) for Systematic School Improvement,” http://www2.ed .gov/PDFDocs/timssbrief.pdf, 1 (accessed August 5, 2013). 39. Thomas Friedman and Michael Mandelbaum, That Used to be Us: How America Fell behind in the World It Invented and How We Can Come Back (New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 2011), 9. 40. John Kotter, A Sense of Urgency (Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Press, 2008). 41. Kotter International, “A True Sense of Urgency,” http://www.kotterinter national.com/our-principles/urgency/trueurgency (accessed September 13, 2012). 42. Stephanie Simon, “High School Graduation Rate up Sharply, but Red Flags Abound,” Reuters, February 25, 2013, http://www.reuters.com/article /2013/02/25/us-highschool-idUSBRE91O0JY20130225 (accessed May 25, 2013).

13 Restoring America’s Culture of Learning 1. Sanford C. Shugart, “Rethinking the Completion Agenda,” Inside Higher Ed (Washington, DC), February 7, 2013, http://www.insidehighered.com /views/2013/02/07/moving-needle-college-completion-thoughtfully -essay (accessed February 11, 2013). 2. Ibid. 3. Ibid. 4. Ibid. 5. Barack Obama, as quoted in Kavitha Cardoza, “Graduation Rates Increase Around the Globe as U.S. Plateaus,” February 21, 2012, American University Radio, http://wamu.org/news/morning_edition/12/02/21 /graduation_rates_increase_around_the_globe_as_us_plateaus (accessed May 30, 2013). 6. Claudia Goldin and Lawrence F. Katz, The Race between Education and Technology (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2008). 7. Claudia Goldin as quoted in David Wessel and Stephanie Banchero “Education Slowdown Threatens U.S,” Wall Street Journal (New York, N.Y), April 26, 2012. 8. National Commission on Excellence in Education, A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, 1983), 7. 9. Kent Farnsworth, “Fighting for the(ir) Future: Can We Compete? The American student v. The World,” (presentation at The Holden Public Policy Forum, Webster University, St. Louis, MO, April 11, 2012.) 10. Arthur M. Cohen and Florence B. Brawer, The American Community College, 4th ed. (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2003), 256. 11. Richard Hofstadter, Anti-Intellectualism in American Life (New York: Vintage Books, 1966). 12. Ibid., viii. 246 NOTES

13. Ibid., 7. 14. Kent Farnsworth, “Fighting for the(ir) Future: Can We Compete?” 15. Richard Arum and Josipa Roksa, Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on College Campuses (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2011), 126. 16. Timothy Shriver as quoted in Thomas L. Friedman and Michael Mandelbaum, That Used to be Us: How America Fell Behind in the World It Invented and How We Can Come Back (New York: D&M Publishers, Inc., 2011), 8. 17. George Orwell, “You and the Atomic Bomb,” first published in The Tribune (London, English), October 19, 1945, http://orwell.ru/library/articles /A Bomb/english/e_abomb (accessed June 30, 2013). 18. “Georgi Arbatov’s Obituary,” The Telegraph, http://www.telegraph.co.uk /news/obituaries/politics-obituaries/8132697/Georgi-Arbatov.html (accessed May 30, 2013). 19. As quoted in Georgi Arbatov’s obituary in The Telegraph. http://www .telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/politics-obituaries/8132697/Georgi -Arbatov.html (accessed May 30, 2013). 20. Kent Farnsworth, “Fighting for the(ir) Future: Can we Compete?” 21. Barack Obama, “Remarks by the President in State of the Union address,” January 25, 2011, http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/01/25 /remarks-president-state-union-address (accessed March 25, 2013). 22. Personal communication on June 1, 2013. 23. Hilary Rodham Clinton, It Takes a Village: And Other Lessons Children Teach Us (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1996), 266. 24. Theodore Roosevelt, Roosevelt’s Writings: Selections from the Writings of Theodore Roosevelt, ed. Maurice Garland Fulton (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1920), 224. 25. “Nike CEO Phil Knight speech at Joe Paterno Memorial,” YouTube video, posted by “ebonygentleman79,” January 26, 2012, http://youtu.be /nTZQAGx9rDY (accessed January 26, 2012). 26. Brainy Quote, “Steve Prefontaine quotes,” http://www.brainyquote.com /quotes/authors/s/steve_prefontaine.html (accessed May 5, 2013). 27. Personal communication on March 26, 2013. 28. Ibid. 29. Peter DeWitt, “The Benefits of Failure,” Education Week Weblog, entry posted on January 8, 2012, http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/finding _common_ground/2012/01/the_benefits_of_failure.html (accessed January 9, 2012). 30. National Churchill Museum, “Miscellaneous Wit & Wisdom,” http://www .nationalchurchillmuseum.org/wit-wisdom-quotes.html (accessed July 1, 2013). 31. David Shields, “Opponents or Enemies: Reclaiming Competition for Excellence, Ethics, and Enjoyment” (presentation, St. Louis Community College Spring Behavioral Sciences Colloquium, St. Louis, MO, February 6, 2013). 32. David L. Shields, “A More Productive Way to Think about Opponents,” Harvard Business Review Blog Network, February 22, 2013, http://blogs .hbr.org/cs/2013/02/a_more_productive_way_to_think_about_oppo nents.html (accessed March 7, 2013). 33. Personal communication on March 26, 2013. NOTES 247

34. John Kador “The Perils of Scientific Illiteracy,” ChiefExecutive.net, February 1, 2012, http://chiefexecutive.net/the-perils-of-scientific-illiter acy (accessed February 16, 2012). 35. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, “Strong performers and successful reformers in education: Lessons from PISA for the United States” 2011, http://www.oecd.org/pisa/46623978.pdf, 49 (accessed May 22, 3013). 36. Ibid. 37. Terry Ryan, “American’s Addiction to Grade Inflation,” Thomas B. Fordham Institute, Ohio Gadfly Daily, April 20, 2012, http://www.edexcellence.net /ohio-policy/gadfly/2012/april-25/americas-addiction-to-grade-inflation .html (accessed April 26, 2012). 38. Ayn Rand and the Prophecy of Atlas Shrugged, Documentary, directed by Chris Mortensen (2011; Virgil Films and Entertainment, 2012.), DVD. 39. Seth Myers, Saturday Night Live, TV, NBC, December 8, 2012. 40. Personal communication on December 29, 2012. 41. Anthony P. Carnevale and Jeff Strohl. “How Increasing College Access Is Increasing Inequality, and What to Do about It,” in Rewarding Strivers: Helping Low-Income Students Succeed in College, ed. Richard Kahlenberg (New York: The Century Foundation, Inc., 2010), 79. 42. Thomas L. Friedman and Michael Mandelbaum, That Used to be Us: How America Fell Behind in the World It Invented and How We Can Come Back (New York: D&M Publishers, Inc., 2011), xi. 43. Thomas L. Friedman, “How to Put America Back Together Again,” The New York Times (New York, NY), April 20, 2013, http://www.nytimes.com /2013/04/21/opinion/sunday/friedman-how-to-put-america-back -together-again.html (accessed April 22, 2013). 44. Ray Bradbury, as quoted in Reader’s Digest, January, 1994, 25. 45. National Endowment for the Arts, “Reading at Risk: A Survey of Literary Reading in America,” June 2004, Research Division Report #46, xiii. 46. Ibid. 47. Ibid. 48. National Endowment for the Arts, “To Read or Not to Read,” Research Division Report, #47, http://www.nea.gov/research/ToRead.pdf (accessed January 6, 2013). 49. Ibid., 3. 50. Thomas Walker, “Our City Schools: Real Choices” (panel presentation, May 29, 2012. St. Louis, MO). 51. Dana Gioia, quoted in National Endowment for the Arts, “Reading at risk: A survey of literary reading in America.” Research Division Report #46, 2004, vii. 52. Ibid. 53. Linda Darling-Hammond, The Flat World and Education. How America’s Commitment to Equity Will Determine Our Future (New York: Teacher’s College Press, 2010), 26. 54. John Jacobson and Mac Huff, I Need a Vacation!, 1993, Hal Leonard Corporation. 55. Neil G. Ruiz and Jill H. Wilson, “A Balancing Act for H-1B Visas” Brookings, April 18, 2013, http://www.brookings.edu/research/articles /2013/04/18-h1b-visa-immigration-ruiz-wilson (accessed May 5, 2013). 248 NOTES

56. Mitch Smith, “Foreign Grad Applications up Again,” Inside Higher Ed (Washington, DC), April 3, 2012, http://www.insidehighered.com/news /2012/04/03/chinese-students-lead-increase-international-graduate -school-applications (accessed May 5, 2013). 57. “Durbin Pushes for High-Tech Visa Reform,” Associated Press, April 9, 2013, http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20130409/news/704099896/ (accessed May 5, 2013). 58. Anthony P. Carnevale and Nicole Smith, “Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce responds to EPI’s STEM ‘myth’ report,” STEMblog, April 30, 2013, http://blog.stemconnector.org/georgetown -university-center-education-and-workforce-responds-epis-stem-myth -report (accessed April 30, 2013). 59. Personal communication on February 9, 2013. 60. Willard R. Daggett, “Preparing Students for Their Future,” International Center for Leadership in Education, June 2005, http://www.leadered.com /pdf/Preparing%20Students%20for%20Their%20Future%206–05.pdf (accessed May 27, 2013). 61. Page McBrier, Beatrice’s Goat (New York: Aladdin, 2001). 62. Personal Communication, May 15, 2013. 63. Theodore Roosevelt, Roosevelt’s Writings, 218. 64. Ibid. 65. National Commission on Excellence in Education, A Nation at Risk, 6. Index

Ability to Benefit (ATB) funding reductions and, 150–1 abuse of, 66–7 Office of Vocational and Adult additional tests for, 133, 196 Education, 51 fraud and, 67–8 performance funding and, 51–2 Murray-Franken amendment, 62–3 Workforce Investment Act (WIA) objective cut scores and, 66–7, 133 and, 51, 76, 150 removal of, 61–3 see also postsecondary alternatives restoration of, 61–2, 132–3, 175, 196 affirmative action Student Loan Default Prevention class-based/race-neutral Initiative Act of 1990 and, 67 socioeconomic admissions, 120 see also Federal Student Aid (FSA) Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, acceleration, 12, 14, 28–9, 44–5, 96–7, 120 112, 139–40, 149–50, 173–4 over-enrollment and, 119–20 see also completion agenda, and race-based admissions, 118–20 developmental education Alliance Data, 156 achievement gap see also autism income-based, 12, 35–6, 62, 118–22, Alliance of States, 14, 44, 55 166–7, 171–3, 202–3 see also Complete College America international, 165, 179–89 (CCA), and Raymond, Dominique race-based, 12, 62, 118–20, 166–7, American Association of Community 186 Colleges (AACC), 8, 28, 74, 136, see also Achieving the Dream, 142, 157 Complete College America (CCA), American College Counseling equity, Lumina Foundation, and Association, 79 Reardon, Sean F. American Council on Education, 90 Achieving the Dream, 12–13, 99 American Educational Research see also Lumina Foundation Association, 32 Adelman, Clifford, 29, 48 American Institutes for Research Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). See No (AIR), 74 Child Left Behind (NCLB) Americans with Disabilities Act, 9, adult education and literacy (AEL), 17, 86, 88 20, 51–2, 73, 76–7, 133, 148–51, see also disability law 196 Arum, Richard, 46, 152, 194 Adult Education and Family Literacy Asch, Chris, 168 Act (AEFLA), 51, 76, 150 Asperger Syndrome, 155 data reporting, 51–2 see also autism educational functioning levels Association for the Study of Higher (EFLs), 51–2 Education (ASHE), 44 250 INDEX

Association of American Colleges and Boylan, Hunter Universities (AAC&U), 103, 158 best practices in developmental Association of Southeast Asian Nations education and, 28–9, 99, 148–53 (ASEAN), 205 What Works: Research-Based Practices autism, 82, 94 in Developmental Education, 28, 99 Alliance Data, 156 see also developmental education, and Asperger Syndrome, 155 National Center for Developmental focusing on ability, importance of, Education 155–63 Bradbury, Ray, 201 nonPareil Institute, 156 Bragg, Debra D., 119 see also Grandin, Temple, and students Brawer, Florence B., 168, 176, 193 with intellectual disabilities Breneman, David W., 105–6, 152 Brix, Ron, 156 Baby Boomers Brown, J. Stanley, 7 college enrollment and, 9 Bush, George H. W., 88 retirement and, 194 Bush, George W., 168, 180 badges, 54 see also No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Baime, David S., 74–5 Bye, Beth, 28, 39 Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act Canada of 2005, 69 community colleges and, 108 see also Federal Student Aid (FSA), higher education entry and, 109 and student debt literacy test, 109 Bauerlein, Mark, 115–16 postsecondary credentialing, 109, 165 Baumgartner, Michael, 29, 180 reading and, 109 incentivizing institutions and, 45 trust in public education and, 109 see also Complete College America Carnegie Foundation, 13 (CCA), performance funding, and Carnevale, Anthony P., 69, 120, 138–40, Performance Funding 2.0 200, 204 Bennett, Tony, 41 Center for Postsecondary and Economic see also Bloomberg, Michael Success, The, 27 Biden, Joseph, 18 Center on Education and the Workforce Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, at Georgetown University, The, 69 The, 31–9, 41 certificates of completion, 21–2, 81–3, 175 Buffett, Warren and, 31 see also students with intellectual Complete College America (CCA) disabilities and, 35–7 Certified Postsecondary Transition funding intermediaries, 32–3, 35–7 Programs (CPTPs), 65, 73, 76, Greenstein, Daniel and, 38–9 91, 93, 100, 102, 132, 154, 157, influencing public policy, 31–7 161–3, 175, 196 performance funding and, 35–8 see also Federal Student Aid (FSA), see also corporate interest in public postsecondary alternatives, and education, and foundations students with intellectual disabilities Blaisdell, Bob, 169 Chaltain, Sam, 56 Bloomberg, Michael, 40 Chapman, Dale, 163 Indiana Superintendent of Education Choitz, Vickie, 27, 65, 166 race and, 41 Churchill, Winston, 198–9 Los Angeles Unified School District Cialdini, Robert, 4 school board race and, 35, 41 Citizenship in a Republic, 196, 206 Bowerman, Bill, 197–8 see also Roosevelt, Theodore INDEX 251

Clinton, Hillary Rodham, 195 Pima Community College (PCC), Cohen, Arthur M., 168, 176, 193 19–25, 27, 127–30 Cold War, the restrictive admissions and, 8–9, Arbatov, Georgi and, 194 14–25 Orwell, George and, 194 St. Louis Community College, 102 waning impact of, 194–5 competition college- and career-readiness, 111, benefits of, 197–9 138–40, 176–7, 191–2 Bowerman, Bill on, 197–8 Common Core State Standards Churchill, Winston on, 198–9 (CCSS) and, 104, 127–8 de-emphasize in society of, 198 National Career Readiness Certificate DeWitt, Peter on, 198–9 and, 54 Prefontaine, Steve on, 198 WorkKeys and, 54, 133 self-esteem and, 199–200 College for Life, 160 Shields, David L. on, 199 see also Haberer, Kathy, and Complete College America (CCA) postsecondary alternatives Alliance of States, 14, 44, 55 Collins, Michael, 14 Arkansas Department of Higher Colorado Commission on Higher Education and, 36 Education, 57 Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation Colorado Developmental Education and, 35–7 Taskforce, 23–4 Complete College Tennessee Act and, 36 Assessment Prep and, 24 Completion Innovation Challenge, 36 Soft Landing and, 24 funding of, 35–6 Common Core State Standards (CCSS), Georgia Governor’s Office of 104, 110, 127–8 Planning and Budget and, 36 high achievers and, 104 Indiana Commission for Higher Community College Research Center Education and, 36 (CCRC), 13, 45, 147, 174 influence on legislators and performance funding research and, policymakers, 13–14, 30–2, 35–7, 37–8 43–9, 55 community college(s) Kentucky Council on Postsecondary Alamo Community College District, Education and, 36 168 performance funding and, 36–8, 43 collaboration and, 146–53 philosophy of, 30 enrollment and, 8–10, 55 Tennessee Higher Education enrollment philosophies of, 7–18, 22–5 Committee and, 36 federal stimulus money and, 59–60 see also Baumgartner, Michael, Jones, flexibility of, 8–9, 75–6, 133–4 Stan, and Raymond, Dominique funding reductions and, 19, 59–61, completion agenda, the 151–2 economic return and, 27, 165, 179–80 history of, 7–18 messaging and, 48, 180–1 honors programs and, 173 narrow focus and, 29–30, 48, 186–7, Joliet Junior College, 7–8 191–2 Joliet Township High School and, 7–8 origins of, 11–12 Kingsborough Community College, Race to the Top (RTTT) and, 56–7 169 wrong working theory and, 191 Lewis and Clark Community College, see also Achieving the Dream, Bill 160, 162–3 and Melinda Gates Foundation, Missouri Community College Complete College America (CCA), Association and, 139 and Lumina Foundation 252 INDEX

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 62 lengthy sequences and, 1–2, 12–15, see also Federal Student Aid (FSA) 92–3, 96–8, 129, 148 continuing education. See postsecondary mandatory assessment and placement alternatives and, 1–2, 10–11, 14, 71–2, 96, 98, corporate interest in public education 100, 168 Amazon and, 41 polarizing language and, 28–9 Bloomberg, Michael and, 40–1 purpose of, 14–15, 91, 94, 99–101 business strategy and, 31–5, 38–41 reduction and/or removal of, 14, 19, Gates, Bill and, 31–41 173–4 Massive Open Online Courses success rates of, 2–3, 10–13, 19–21, (MOOCs), 40 23, 76 Microsoft and, 41 T.I.D.E.S (Targeted Intervention privatization and, 40–1 for Developmental Education Ravitch, Diane on, 40–1 Students), 149 Zuckerberg, Mark and, 40 see also Boylan, Hunter, Breneman, Cosand, Joseph, 102 David W., Costrell, Robert Costrell, Robert M., 105–6, 111 M., Haarlow, William N., and Council for Advancement of Adult Steinberg, Laurence Literacy, 148 DeWitt, Peter, 198–9 course rigor, postsecondary diplomas, high school heterogeneous enrollment and, 90–3, degree inflation and, 83–4 114, 175 loss of value, 21–2, 54, 81–5, 195 pedagogical overcompensation and, modified curriculum and, 15, 21–2, 111–15 72–3, 76, 81–7, 90–1, 93, 100, 132–3, 175, 195 Daggett, Willard R., 205 disability benefits, 116 Dale, Jack D., 136 disability law Darling-Hammond, Linda, 203 Americans with Disabilities Act Dayton, Mark, 147 (ADA), 9, 86, 88 Deasy, John, 35 Education for All Handicapped developmental education Children Act, 88 acceleration and, 12, 14, 29–30, Individuals with Disabilities 44–5, 96–7, 112, 115, 139–40, Education Act (IDEA), 16, 81–3, 149–50, 173–4 86, 88–90, 161 assumption of institutional deficiency Kaitlyn’s Law, 84–5 and, 14–15, 78–9, 86, 90–4, postsecondary environment and, 88–90 96–102, 153–4, 169–70, 175 Rosa’s Law, 16 Boylan, Hunter and, 28–9, 99, secondary environment and, 87–8 148–50, 153 Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act collaboration and, 148–50, 152–3, of 1973, 9, 86, 88–9 175 Deil-Amen, Regina, 169–70 contextualization of basic skills and, Dewey, John, 169–71 28, 139, 146–8 Dorman, Gus, 172 cost of, 13, 19, 105–6 Dorman, Rob, 172 embedding basic skills and, 14, 113, Duncan, Arne, 107, 128, 187 141, 145–7, 173 Durbin, Dick, 204 enrollment increase and, 2, 10–13, Durham, Brian, 119 15, 98 heterogeneous classrooms and, 15, economy, U.S. 90–3, 175 credit rating loss, 63 INDEX 253

recession and, 19, 27, 59–60, 138, FSA Handbook, 73–4 150, 173 Higher Education Opportunity Act student loan debt and, 63–4, 69 Reauthorization of 2008, 65, 102, subprime mortgage crisis and, 69 161–2 Education for All Handicapped history of, 65–8, 161–2 Children Act, 88 improper award of, 65–8, 70–3, see also disability law, and Individuals 75–80 with Disabilities Education Act injury to low-skilled students and, (IDEA) 70–8, 119–22, 125, 130–2, 141–7 Eisenman, Laura, 91–2 Office of the Inspector General employment (OIG), 67 dichotomy of, 107, 147–8 Pell Grants, 2, 13, 37, 45, 61–3, 74, entitlement and, 115–16, 204–5 78, 121–2, 132, 141–4, 166, 196 twenty-first-century America and, 53, record lending, 63–4, 69 107, 136–7, 138–40, 146–8, 180–2 remedial coursework and, 25, 71–3 English as a second language (ESL). Satisfactory Academic Progress, 80 See Federal Student Aid School-Determined Requirements, 70 equity, 9, 110–11, 118–22, 125, 144–5, Stafford loan, 64 166–74 Student Loan Default Prevention exit examinations. See students with Initiative Act of 1990, 67 disabilities students with intellectual disabilities Exxon Mobile Corporation, 69 and, 21–2, 65, 73, 76–7, 91–3, 100–1, 131–2, 153–4, 161–3 Fabianke, Jo-Carol, 168 Title IV of the Higher Education Act Fain, Paul, 23, 114 of 1965 (HEA), 65–7 Family Educational Rights and Privacy violations of, 70–3 Act (FERPA), 86 see also Obama, Barack Farnsworth, Kent, 193–4 financial aid packages Federal Student Aid (FSA) affluent students and, 61, 119 ability to benefit, 22, 51–2, 61–3, low-income students and, 61–2, 65–8, 132–3, 175, 196 119–20 Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Finland Consumer Protection Act of 2005, 69 citizens with disabilities and, 154–5 Certified Postsecondary Transition Finnish National Board of Education, Programs (CPTPs) and, 65, 73, 76, 137–8 91–3, 100, 154, 161–3, 196 general and upper secondary, 137–8 conservative federal intent and, 65–8, lifelong learning and, 137–8 70–6, 79–80 Ministry of Education, The, 137, 185 Consolidated Appropriations Act, 62 National Education and Training consumer protection and, 20, 24, Committees, 137 27–8, 65–8, 69–70, 73–5, 126–7 vocational education and training crime/violence and, 78–80 (VET), 137–8, 154–5 curriculum ineligibility, 25, 71–3 Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, dubious high school diplomas and, 120 22, 68, 72–3, 93, 132 see also affirmative action English as a second language, 72–4 Flores, Roy, 19–20, 22–3 fraud increase, 66–8, 74–5 see also Pathways to Pima, PCC fraud prevention, 67–8, 73–5 College Prep Academy, and Pima Free Application for Federal Student Community College (PCC) Aid (FAFSA), 70 Fonte, Richard, 10 254 INDEX foreign language Immigration Innovation Act of 2013 divestment in, 187–8 (I-Squared), 204 Foreign Language Assistance knowledge economy and, 46, 55, Program (FLAP), 187–8 185–8 importance of, 187–8 “rise of the rest,” 183 introduction to, 187 see also Nation at Risk, PISA, and foundations TIMMS advocacy philanthropy and, 31–41 Goldin, Claudia, 193 creating a confluence of findings, grade point average (GPA) 34–5, 37–8 improper calculation of, 87 deflecting criticism, 32, 38–9 see also transcripts, high school lack of accountability and, 34 graduation rates mega-foundations, 32–4, 38 college, 180, 189 outsized influence, 31–41 high school, 8–9, 180, 189 role of intermediaries, 32–3, 34–8 Grandin, Temple, 155–6 tax shelters and, 33 Grantmakers for Education, 33 see also Bill and Melinda Gates Grassley, Charles, 204 Foundation, Complete College Great Recession of 2008, 19, 59, 138, America (CCA), and Lumina 150, 173 Foundation Grigal, Meg, 21, 90, 91, 95, 98 Franken, Al, 62 Grubb, W. Norton, 11, 111, 119 see also Ability to Benefit (ATB), and Gurrìa, Angel, 107 Murray-Franken amendment see also Organisation for Economic Friedman, Thomas L., 53, 188, 192–3, Co-operation and Development 201 (OECD)

G.I. Bill, 8, 133 H-1B visa program, 204 Gates, Bill, 28, 29, 32, 40, 44 see also global competition see also Bill and Melinda Gates Haarlow, William N., 105–6, 152 Foundation, and foundations Haberer, Kathy, 160 Gaumer, Amy S., 101 Hadden, Craig, 168 General Education Development (GED), Hall, Cassie, 32–4, 40 2, 16, 61, 66, 72, 143, 146, 148–9, see also foundations, and Thomas, 150 Scott L. gifted and talented, 171–3 Harper, William Rainey, 7 Dorman, Gus, 172 Harris, Nancy, 172 Dorman, Rob, 172 Hart, Debra, 21, 90, 91, 98 Jacob K. Javits Gifted and Talented Hart, Gary, 129 Students Education Program, Haycock, Kati, 172 171 helicopter parenting, 198 Gioia, Dana, 202 Hersh, Richard H., 30, 55 see also National Endowment for the Hess, Frederick M., 38 Arts (NEA) Higher Education Act of 1965, 65–7 global competition Higher Education Opportunity Act American education and, 11–12, 46, Reauthorization of 2008 (HEOA), 53–5, 107–10, 135–6, 165, 177, 65, 102, 161–2 179, 181–9 see also Federal Student Aid (FSA) foreign workers and, 204–5 Higher Learning Commission (HLC), global competence versus, 180–2 23, 25 H-1B visa program, 204 Hofstadter, Richard, 193 INDEX 255 honors programs, 173 Kahlenberg, Richard D., 120 see also community colleges Kaitlyn’s Law, 84–5 Hoover, Eric, 15 see also disability law Humphreys, Debra, 29, 46 Keeling, Richard P., 30, 55 Hyllegard, David, 9 Kelderman, Eric, 60 Klein, Catherine, 99–100 IDEA Data Accountability, 81 Klein, Sarah, 99–100 Immigration Innovation Act of 2013 Knight, Phil, 197 (I-Squared), 204 Kotter, John, 188–9 see also global competition individualized education programs laissez-faire access, 10, 13–16, 17–18, 126 (IEPs), 81, 84–5, 89, 100, 172 see also open admissions see also students with disabilities Laurence, Scott, 104 Individuals with Disabilities Education Lavin, David E., 9 Act (IDEA), 16, 81–3, 86, 88–90, Lederman, Doug, 32, 38 161 Lee, Stephanie, 91 see also disability law, and Education Leef, George, 83–4 for All Handicapped Children Act Lehren, Andrew W., 68 inequity Lipka, Sara, 15 enrollment beyond academic ability local education agencies (LEAs), 81, 195 and, 111–13, 118–22, 166–71, see also students with disabilities 176–7 Longanecker, David, 22–3 enrollment beyond financial ability, Los Angeles Unified School District 140–6, 166–7, 176–7 (LAUSD), 35 income, 62 low-income students Institute for Community Inclusion, completion and, 62, 138–46 94–5, 162 dependents and, 142–4 intellectual disability (ID). See students program mismatch and, 138–44, with intellectual disabilities (ID) 166–71, 176–7 intellectualism tracking and, 144–5, 168 American decline of, 12, 193–4, 197 Luckasson, Ruth A., 15–16 international students Luecking, Richard, 160 enrollment of, 53, 179, 204 Lumina Foundation, 12, 32–4, 37–8, 165, 181 Jacob K. Javits Gifted and Talented Achieving the Dream and, 12 Students Education Program, Community College Research Center 171 and, 37–8 see also gifted and talented National Governor’s Association Jacobs-Biden, Jill, 18, 114 and, 33 Jobs for the Future (JFF), 14, 139, 146 Teachers College of Columbia see also postsecondary alternatives University and, 37–8 Joffe-Walt, Chana, 116 John W. Pope Center for Higher Mancini, Karen, 91–2 Education Policy, 69 Mandelbaum, Michael, 53, 188, 192–3, Joliet Township High School, 7 201 Jones, Stan, 14, 35–7 Manhattan Institute for Policy see also Complete College America Research, 2 (CCA), performance funding, and Martin, Andrew, 68 Performance Funding 2.0 Marx, Jonathan, 85 Joyce Foundation, The, 146–7 Matthew Effect, The, 62 256 INDEX

McCabe, Robert H., 9, 99, 180 National Endowment for the Arts McCall, Tom, 5–6 (NEA), 201–2 McCartney, Robert, 136 Gioia, Dana, 202 McClellan, Bill, 45–6, 47, 58 Reading at Risk, 201–2 see also performance funding To Read or Not to Read: A Question McClenney, Byron, 13 of National Consequence, 201 McClenney, Kay, 19, 165 National Governor’s Association, 33 Meeler, David, 85 National Student Clearinghouse mental retardation, 15–16, 21–2, 82, Research Center, 48–9 90, 161, 175 National Task Force on Civic Learning see also Rosa’s Law, and students with and Democratic Engagement, 158 intellectual disabilities Neill, Monty, 50 Middle Income Student Assistance Act, Neubert, Debra A., 95 The, 66 New Commission on the Skills of Mitchell, Thomas, 10–11 The American Workforce, modified curriculum. See diplomas, 109–10, 180, 192 high school, and students with Nixon, Jeremiah “Jay,” 55, 60, 84, 139 intellectual disabilities No Child Left Behind (NCLB), Moon, Sherril M., 95 49–50, 83 Moore, Gary, 156 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Morante, Ed, 11 and, 83 Morningstar, Mary E., 101 cheating and, 50–1 Mullin, Christopher M., 75, 142 lowered standards and, 49–50 Murray, Patty, 62–3 National Assessment of Education see also Ability to Benefit, and Progress (NAEP) and, 50 Murray-Franken amendment see also Rhee, Michelle Murray-Franken amendment, 63 nonPareil Institute, 156 Myran, Gunder, 171 see also autism

Nation at Risk, A, 12, 58, 67, 106, 179, Obama, Barack, 16, 30, 37, 50, 56, 60, 188, 193, 201, 206 63, 135–6, 186–7, 192, 194 National Assessment of Adult Literacy, Federal Student Aid (FSA) and, 150 60–1, 63–4 National Assessment of Education foreign language acquisition Progress (NAEP), 50, 53, 202 importance and, 187 see also No Child Left Behind (NCLB) philosophy of education and, 135–6, National Association for Developmental 186–7, 192, 194 Education (NADE), 5, 37, 44, 149, performance funding and, 37, 50, 56–7 155 Race to the Top (RTTT) and, 50, 56–7 National Association of Student Financial Summit on the Community College, 30 Aid Administrators, 74 Office of Community College Research National Career Readiness Certificate and Leadership (OCCRL), 146 (NCRC), 54 Office of the Inspector General (OIG), 67 National Center for Developmental open access. See open admissions Education (NCDE), 28, 148 open admissions National Center on Education and attrition/failure and, 1–4, 10–11, the Economy (NCEE), 107, 20–3, 91–4, 96–8, 101–2, 111–12, 113–15, 126–8 167, 169–70 National Commission on Excellence in critics of, 10–11, 14–15, 166–7, Education, 12, 58, 106, 179, 206 107–11 INDEX 257

depression on secondary achievement Person, Ann E., 169–70 and, 4–5, 16, 18, 103–23, 126–32, Pierce, Jim, 156 195–7 Pima Community College (PCC) history of, 7–18 accreditation crisis and, 23, 25 laissez-faire access, 10, 13–16, 17–18, enrollment dip and, 27–8 126 Federal Student Aid compliance and, shift from, 10–11, 16–18, 19–25, 22, 24 125–34, 165–6, 173–5 financial straits and, 19 support for, 8–9, 13, 27, 29 Flores, Roy and, 19–20, 22–3 underserved populations and, 3, 104, Pathways to Pima, 20, 24, 129 109, 118, 123 PCC College Prep Academy, 20–1 open door policy. See open admissions Pima Open Admission Coalition and, open enrollment. See open admissions 20–1 The Organisation for Economic placement/admissions tests Co-operation and Development Accuplacer, 1 (OECD), 62–3 ACT, 10 PISA and, 182–5 high-stakes nature of, 15, 27–8, 96 recommendations for the U.S. and, historical origins, 10 64–5, 107–10, 133–4, 199 SAT, 10 Orwell, George, 194 postsecondary alternatives, 5, 75–6, Oyserman, Daphna, 118, 122 101, 130, 135–63 adult education and literacy (AEL), Palinchak, Robert S., 10 17, 20, 51–2, 73, 76–7, 133, Pathways to Pima, 20, 24 148–51, 196 see also Flores, Roy, PCC College Prep Certified Postsecondary Transition Academy, and Pima Community Programs (CPTPs), 65, 73, 76, College (PCC) 91, 93, 100, 102, 132, 154, 157, Pathways to Prosperity Project, 139 161–3, 175, 196 see also postsecondary alternatives College for Life, 160 Pathways to Results, 146–7 continuing education, 75–7, 133, see also postsecondary alternatives 152, 157 PCC College Prep Academy, 20–1 Jobs for the Future, 14, 139, 146 see also Flores, Roy, Pathways to Pima, MoHealthWINs, 139–41 and Pima Community College MoManufacturingWINs, 139 (PCC) paradigm shift in advising and, 136, Pell Grants. See Federal Student Aid 168–71 (FSA) Pathways to Prosperity Project, 139 Pelligrino, James, 134 Pathways to Results, 146–7 performance funding, 43 Project Reach: Service Inclusion for data pitfalls and, 44, 47–9 Community College Students, 157–8 Performance Funding 1.0, 36, 43, service learning, 157–9 46, 55–6 Shifting Gears, 146–7 Performance Funding 2.0, 36–8, short-term training, 138–40 43–55, 58, 112 Soft Landing and Assessment Prep, 24–5 Race to the Top (RTTT) and, 50, 56 stackable credentials, 138–9 standards reduction and, 28–31, 37, Supported Higher Education Project 43–56, 58, 181 (SHEP), 99–100 unhealthy competition and, 47–8 Think College! Postsecondary Options see also Complete College America for Students with Intellectual (CCA) Disabilities, 99, 162 258 INDEX postsecondary alternatives—Continued Roosevelt, Franklin D., 8 TPSID (Transition and Postsecondary Roosevelt, Theodore, 196, 206 Programs for Students with Citizenship in a Republic, 196, 206 Intellectual Disabilities), 161–2 Rosa’s Law, 16 Trade Adjustment Assistance see also disability law, mental Community College and retardation, and students with Career Training (TAACCCT) intellectual disabilities grants, 137, 139, 151 Rose, Mike, 144–5 workforce development and training, Rosenbaum, James E., 169–70 146–8, 151–2 Rouche, Suzanne, 128–9 vocational/technical education and Roueche, John, 128–9 training, 136–48, 154–5, 167–9 Ryan, Jim, 136 Potter, Halley, 120 Prefontaine, Steve, 198 Sander, Richard H., 119–20 Prince, Heath, 27, 65, 166 Santorum, Rick, 135–6 Programme for International Student Schalock, Robert L., 15–16 Assessment (PISA), 107–9, 182–5, Schneider, Barbara, 194 199 Schneider, Mark, 74, 166 School-Determined Requirements. qualifying exams, postsecondary See Federal Student Aid (FSA) Canadian literacy test, 109 Science Technology Engineering and Finnish National Matriculation exam, Mathematics (STEM) 185 completion agenda and, 186–7 recommendations for U.S. and, job growth and, 204 107–10 Scott, George A., 68 Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of Race to the Top (RTTT), 50, 56–7 1973, 9, 86, 88–9 see also Obama, Barack, and see also disability law performance funding Selec, Dan, 156 Rand, Ayn, 200 self-determination, 89–90, 94–7, Ravitch, Diane, 40–1 157–8 Raymond, Dominique, 44–5, 49 see also students with intellectual see also Complete College America disabilities, and transition (CCA), performance funding, and planning Performance Funding 2.0 Selingo, Jeff, 130, 136, 170 reading service learning, 157–9 absence in college, 113–15 see also postsecondary alternatives, low American engagement and, and students with intellectual 201–2 disabilities Reagan, Ronald, 12 Servicemen’s Readjustment Act of 1944. Reardon, Sean F., 62 See G.I. Bill Reich, Rob, 34, 38 Shields, David L., 199 remedial coursework. See Federal Student Shifting Gears, 146–7 Aid (FSA) see also postsecondary alternatives Renzulli, Joseph, 172 Shogren, Karrie A., 15–16 Rhee, Michelle, 51 Shriver, Timothy, 194 Riddle, Wayne, 66–7 Shugart, Sanford “Sandy,” 191–2 Robinson, Jenna Ashley, 69 Sirota, David, 41 Rockefeller, John D., 7 Skelly, Kevin, 104 Roksa, Josipa, 46, 152, 194 Smith, Nicole, 138–9, 204 INDEX 259

Solzhenitsyn, Alexandr, 117 improper Federal Student Aid (FSA) Soros, George, 40 eligibility and, 21–3, 91–4, 100–2, Spellings Commission Report, The, 180 153–4, 175 Steinberg, Laurence, 105 inclusion, supported and unsupported, Stevenson, David, 194 91–102, 131, 153, 159 Strauss, Valerie, 40 modified curriculum and, 15, 21–2, Strohl, Jeff, 120, 138–9 72–3, 76, 81–7, 93, 100, 132–3, Stroman, Duane F., 90 175, 195 student commitment safety concerns and, 98 completion and, 4, 15–16, 43, 54, service learning and, 157–9 103–6, 129, 191, 200 Think College! Postsecondary Options eliciting, 4–5, 29–30, 56–8, 103–23, for Students with Intellectual 125–32, 191–206 Disabilities, 99, 162 student debt TPSID (Transition and credit card debt versus, 69 Postsecondary Programs for federal responsibility and, 60–1, Students with Intellectual 69–70 Disabilities), 161–2 impact on economy, 63–4 transition planning and, 76, 89–102, loan default and, 67 152–63 see also economy (U.S.), Federal see also postsecondary alternatives, Student Aid (FSA), and financial self-determination, students with aid packages disabilities, and transition planning Student Loan Default Prevention Supported Higher Education Project Initiative Act of 1990, 67 (SHEP), 99–100 see also Federal Student Aid (FSA) see also postsecondary alternatives students with disabilities exit examinations and, 81–2 Tanner, Teresa, 157 high school diplomas and, 83–4 Taylor, Jr., Stuart, 119–20 individualized education programs Teachers College of Columbia (IEPs) and, 81, 84–5, 89, 100, 172 University, 37–8 local education agencies (LEAs) and, see also Community College Research 81, 195 Center see also students with intellectual Think College! Postsecondary Options disabilities (ID) for Students with Intellectual students with intellectual disabilities (ID) Disabilities, 99, 162 autism and, 82, 94, 155 see also postsecondary alternatives, Certified Postsecondary Transition students with intellectual disabilities, Programs (CPTPs), 65, 73, 76, and transition planning 91, 93, 100, 102, 132, 154, 157, Thomas, Scott L., 32–3, 39–40 161–3, 175, 196 see also Hall, Cassie, and foundations community college enrollment and, Title II of the Workforce Investment 21–2, 90–102, 153–63 Act (WIA), 51, 151 definition of, 15–16 see also workforce development and employment and, 154–9, 160–1 training enrollment goals and, 75–6, 89–90, Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 91–2, 94–6, 99–102, 156–63, 175 1965 (HEA), 65–7 focusing on ability and, 154–63 see also Federal Student Aid (FSA) high school diplomas and, 15, 21–2, Title VI of The Civil Rights Act of 1964, 9 72–3, 81–7, 90–1, 93–4, 97, 132–3, Title IX of the Education Amendments 175 of 1972, 9 260 INDEX

TPSID (Transition and Postsecondary Tucker, Marc S., 114–15, 127–8 Programs for Students with Tucson Unified School District Intellectual Disabilities), 161–2 (TUSD), 21 see also Certified Postsecondary Transition Programs (CPTPs), U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 120 postsecondary alternatives, students U.S. Department of Education, 22–3, with intellectual disabilities, and 29, 48, 51, 66–8, 73–4, 86–7, transition planning 99–100, 133, 158 Trade Adjustment Assistance Community U.S. Department of Labor, 137 College and Career Training University of Chicago, 7 (TAACCCT) grants, 137, 139, 151 see also postsecondary alternatives, Villaraigosa, Antonio, 35 and workforce development and vocational/technical education and training skilled trades transcripts, high school 4-H and, 155 GPA unreliability, 87 economic and employment benefits improper transcription and, 73, 85–7 of, 136–48, 167–8 misled third parties and, 72–3, 83–7 Finland and, 137–8, 154–5 proper transcription and, 86–7 perception of, 136–7, 168–9 report cards versus, 86–7 see also postsecondary alternatives, transition planning and workforce development and collaboration and, 91–2, 99–102, training 148–50, 152–63 demand side model, 90 Washington, Christopher L., 111 individualized education program Watson, Debraha, 155 (IEP) requirement and, 89 Wehmeyer, Michael L., 89 person-centered, 90, 100 Wellman, Jane, 60–1 Project SEARCH, 157 Will, Madeleine, 91 Think College! Postsecondary Options workforce development and training, for Students with Intellectual 136–48, 151–2 Disabilities, 99, 162 eligibility standards and, 51–2 TPSID (Transition and Title II of the Workforce Investment Postsecondary Programs for Act (WIA), 51, 151 Students with Intellectual Trade Adjustment Assistance Disabilities), 161–2 Community College and Career see also postsecondary alternatives, Training (TAACCCT) grants, 137, students with disabilities, and 139, 151 students with intellectual disabilities Workforce Investment Act (WIA) Traub, James, 166 and, 51, 76, 150, 166 Trawick, Amy, 149–50, 153 WorkKeys, 54, 133 Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), Yin, Lu (Michelle), 166 183–4 Truman, Harry S, 8, 9, 133 Zakaria, Fareed, 183 This page intentionally left blank This page intentionally left blank