Challenges That Community College Students Face
Main points:
• Power, Governance, and Funding
• Goals and Incentives
• Financial Aid
• Institutional Differentiation
• Access to Credit-Bearing Coursework
• Faculty
• Social Inequalities and Student Characteristics
• Academic challenges
• Economic challenges
Power, Governance, and Funding
• Publicly funded, indebted to business communities, families,
and legislators
• middle-grounds between K-12 and higher education
• Do not conform to institutions below or above them
• Substantial resistance when community connections are not
apparent
• Tight linkage between funding structures, governance and
success
• Heavy reliance on state and local revenues.
• Very little federal funding including financial aid
• Additional state and local support fails to fill this gap
• Susceptible to fluctuating economy and budgets
• Resources get focused to some programs over others.
Goals and Incentives
• Emphasis placed on college-going rather than completion
• Governments and philanthropies pay little attention to
finishing college
• This is reflected funding formulas
• Funding formulas based on enrollment
• Rewards for getting students not ensuring students succeed
• Little incentive improving the quality of student outcomes.
Financial Aid
• Largest government investment
• Rules and guidelines reduce access and retention of aid
• E.g., although part-time enrollment reduces aid eligibility.
• Students enrolled less than half time are ineligible for any aid
• Work earnings for independent students quickly absorbed
quickly under the federal formula.
Institutional Differentiation
• students move institutions to complete a bachelor’s degree
• This introduces a structural barrier to student success because,
• Some students lose a portion of the credits earned previous
institution
• Fail to piece together a coherent curriculum of courses, and
• struggle to pay for college and travel to school
Access to Credit-Bearing Coursework
• Academic preparations does not preclude enrollment
• But, affects transitioning to credit-bearing coursework
• A common practice that affects many students because,
• Most students are adults
• From, disadvantaged backgrounds,
• Often enter higher education with low literacy levels
Faculty
• Heavy reliance on part-time adjunct lecturers
• Overall negative effect on student persistence
• Professional development commonly one-time ineffective
workshops
• Lack resources for faculty development
• A severe faculty shortage in nursing, Science, Engineering,
technology and Mathematics
Social Inequalities and Student Characteristics
• Students of a range of family backgrounds
• Some families, neither of the parents is educated beyond high
school
• Students from low socioeconomic backgrounds less likely to
complete college
Academic challenges
• Students need academic preparation
• Students with advanced preparatory high school courses perform better
• Economically disadvantaged and minority students receive secondary
schooling in vocational tracks
•
take fewer math and science courses; and
• Attend schools with fewer resources, less-qualified teachers, and lack
college preparation coursework
Economic challenges
• Significant challenges figuring out how to pay college fees
• Low-income and minority students do not attend or do not
complete a college degree due to affordability
• Financial aid are less need-based and more merit-based
• Funding devoted to loans rather than grants,
• reduced chances that low-income students enter or complete
college degree
Review of Educational
Research
http://rer.aera.net
Challenges and Opportunities for Improving Community College Student
Success
Sara Goldrick-Rab
REVIEW OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH 2010 80: 437
DOI: 10.3102/0034654310370163
The online version of this article can be found at:
http://rer.sagepub.com/content/80/3/437
Published on behalf of
American Educational Research Association
and
http://www.sagepublications.com
Additional services and information for Review of Educational Research can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://rer.aera.net/alerts
Subscriptions: http://rer.aera.net/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.aera.net/reprints
Permissions: http://www.aera.net/permissions
>> Version of Record - Sep 29, 2010
What is This?
Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net by guest on December 8, 2011
0163RER
Review of Educational Research
September 2010, Vol. 80, No. 3, pp. 437–469
DOI: 10.3102/0034654310370163
© 2010 AERA. http://rer.aera.net
Challenges and Opportunities for Improving
Community College Student Success
Sara Goldrick-Rab
University of Wisconsin–Madison
Many of the democratizing opportunities provided by community colleges are
diminished in the eyes of policy makers by inadequate rates of success. In
particular, large proportions of students who enter community colleges do
not persist for longer than a semester, complete a program, or attain a credential. This review critically examines academic and policy research in
search of explanations, emphasizing what is known about challenges stemming from three levels of influence: the macro-level opportunity structure;
institutional practices; and the social, economic, and academic attributes
students bring to college. It provides examples of how factors operating at
each level affect rates of success at key times, including the initial transition
to college, the experience of remedial education, and persistence through
credit-bearing coursework. The article also discusses potential and ongoing
reforms that could increase rates of community college success by addressing
one or more areas of influence (the macro, the institutional, or the individual). It is concluded that increasing success in the open-access, public 2-year
sector requires reforms directed at multiple levels and cannot be achieved
with either student- or institution-focused incentives alone.
Keywords:
community colleges, social stratification, educational reform
The massive expansion of the community college over the last century substantially increased participation in American higher education, particularly among
individuals with limited opportunities for education beyond high school because
of academic difficulties, financial constraints, and other factors. But strides in
increasing access have not met with much success in terms of matching students
to credentials; in fact, efforts to broaden opportunities may have hindered efforts
to increase completion rates. A substantial proportion of students attending public
2-year colleges enroll with the intention to earn credentials yet make little progress
toward a certificate or degree (Bailey, Leinbach, & Jenkins, 2006). For example,
within 6 years of transitioning to college only slightly more than one third of community college entrants complete a credential of any kind (Calcagno, Bailey,
Jenkins, Kienzl, & Leinbach, 2006).
Furthermore, although the open-door policy that community colleges embrace
is intended to democratize opportunities, completion remains correlated with
437
Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net by guest on December 8, 2011
Goldrick-Rab
socioeconomic advantage (McIntosh & Rouse, 2009). In fact, individuals from
middle-class backgrounds may incur the greatest benefits from the community
college and in particular its transfer function (Dougherty, 1994; Leigh & Gill,
2003; Rouse, 1995, 1998).
This review examines studies from social science, education, and policy over
the last 25 years that identify contributors to community college success. The
conceptual approach taken emphasizes the intertwining roles of three levels of
influence: the macro-level opportunity structure; institutional practices; and the
social, economic, and academic attributes students bring to college. The purpose
is to clarify the multiple sources of difficulties that community colleges face before
deciding on solutions.
Although practitioners often attribute poor completion rates to the numerous
“deficiencies” that students bring to community college, this review shows that
policies affecting the capacity of community colleges to serve students are also
important. Crafting more effective responses requires reforms at multiple levels
and cannot be achieved with either student- or institution-focused incentives alone.
Several promising practices with empirical support are described, and the review
concludes by identifying several areas for future research with the potential to
increase the field’s scope and utility.
Measuring Community College Student Success
Community colleges are highly regarded for their open admissions policy, which
expands opportunities to everyone, regardless of prior advantages or disadvantages. Working learners are welcomed—more than half of 2-year college students
are employed, compared with only 37% of 4-year college students. Because prior
academic success is not a prerequisite for admission, 61% of students at community colleges take at least one remedial course while in college, and 25% take two
or more remedial courses. This means that community college faculty members
often take on the hard but necessary task of meeting students where they are and
helping to move them to the next academic level (McIntosh & Rouse, 2009; U.S.
Department of Education 2008).
This “second-chance” policy serves an essential function in a country where
substantial numbers of poor and minority students leave high school without a
diploma and even more often without developing strong writing, reading, and math
skills. Many of these students focus their college search process on community
colleges, constructing a decision between attending that institution or not attending
college at all (Roderick, Nagaoka, & Coca, 2009). Fully 58% of all AfricanAmerican undergraduates and 66% of all Hispanic undergraduates are enrolled in
community colleges (Katsinas & Tollefson, 2009). As a result, “there are, for
example, more low-income African American and Hispanic students at Bronx
Community College alone than there are in the entire Ivy League” (Bailey &
Jenkins, 2009). That diversity in both the student population and institutional missions creates challenges for creating and measuring success.
Establishing a Baseline
Open-access institutions are nonselective by definition. This means that students
enter with a wide range of goals and expectations, making assessment (and particularly benchmarking) of their outcomes complicated. For example, if success is
438
Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net by guest on December 8, 2011
Improving Community College Student Success
based on the outcomes of all entrants, performance will be depressed unless success is very broadly defined. By the same token, measuring success only for a
select group (e.g., those who indicate degree intentions or achieve credit thresholds) may produce a falsely positive appearance of success while also encouraging
access to diminish (e.g., through creaming). Results vary depending on how
broadly the pool of potential completers is defined and how success is measured
(Adelman, 2005; Bailey et al., 2006; Bradburn, Hearst, & Peng, 2003; Burke,
2004; Dougherty, Hare, & Natow, 2009).
Therefore, descriptions of success in the community college sector must carefully define its terms and conditions and recognize the implications of metrics
(American Association of Community Colleges, 2009; Dougherty et al., 2009).
However, those caveats do not ameliorate the need to assess success, particularly
given a climate of scarce fiscal resources and a push to increase the nation’s stock
of human capital (Aldeman & Carey, 2009; Hebel, 2009). Those desires for degree
completion are echoed in the individuals who enroll at community colleges. Trends
in college aspirations indicate a strong presence of a college-going culture in
American high schools, with nearly all high school seniors reporting intentions of
earning college degrees (Roderick, Nagaoka, & Allensworth, 2006). Ninety percent of high school students indicate that they expect to attend college, even if their
career choice does not require it (Schneider and Stevenson, 1999). Compared with
the 1970s, 12th graders in 2000 were twice as likely to anticipate earning a bachelor’s degree in addition to a 2-year degree (Reynolds, Stewart, MacDonald, &
Sischo, 2006). Rates of long-term expectations for earning bachelor’s degrees are
similarly high among entering community college students, with 70% expecting
to earn a bachelor’s degree or higher (Bailey et al., 2006).
When they first enroll, community college students report a mix of short-term
motivations primarily based on practical considerations and personal enrichment.
When not restricted to offer a single reason for attending, 46% report enrolling for
personal interest and 42% report seeking job skills. Roughly the same percentage
indicate that they are enrolled to earn an associate degree, and 17% want a certificate (Horn & Nevill, 2006). Notably, desires for job skills or personal enrichment
do not preclude degree intentions—nearly 80% of students across those two groups
expect to earn a credential (Bailey, Jenkins, & Leinbach, 2006). Over one-third of
community college students report that they enroll in order to transfer to a 4-year
college (Horn & Nevill, 2006).
At the same time, one function of education is to increase students’ ambitions
for further education, and therefore college attendance itself may enhance educational expectations. One simple measure of success is whether students increase
(or decrease) their educational expectations after entering community college. In
contrast to a longstanding hypothesis that community college students incur
diminished aspirations over time in a process of “cooling out” (Clark, 1960), there
is mounting evidence that students’ already-high aspirations swell during college
in a process some have termed “warming up” (Alexander, Bozick, & Entwisle,
2008). In contrast, there is little support for the idea that students level or reduce
their expectations in response to feedback about their academic abilities or planned
occupational requirements or as a result of attending community college
(Rosenbaum, Deil-Amen, & Person, 2006).
439
Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net by guest on December 8, 2011
Goldrick-Rab
Therefore, conditioning rates of success based on initial measures of expectations
or primary reasons for enrollment may be problematic (Bailey et al., 2006). Given
that intended outcomes vary over time, some observers suggest that community college success is more appropriately measured with intermediate indicators or “milestones” (Calcagno, Crosta, Bailey, & Jenkins, 2006; Moore, Shulock, & Offenstein,
2009). For example, progress can be assessed based on the completion of course
credits (either remedial or nonremedial credits), the percentage of a program completed, or whether a student passes the initial college-level or degree-credit “gateway” courses in writing and mathematics. This approach credits incremental progress
and takes into account wide variation in student pathways.
Average Rates of Success
Even with the caveats mentioned here, progress through community college is
generally slow, no matter how it is measured. The evidence is clear—among students with stated degree intentions, rates of dropout are high (Bailey et al., 2006).
After 3 years just 16% of first-time community college students who began college
in 2003 attained a credential of any kind (certificate, associate’s degree, and/or
bachelor’s degree), and another 40% were still enrolled. When students are given
6 years to complete instead of 3, completion rates improve somewhat—for example, 36% of students entering community colleges in 1995 attained a credential by
2001. Moreover, another 17.5% were still enrolled. Although this indicates that
completion rates need to account for the pace of progress toward completion, the
noncompletion rate (no degree, not enrolled) hovers very close to 50%—even
given longer time horizons. Of course, this number decreases when degree completion is measured over a longer period of time (Attewell & Lavin, 2007), but in
the aggregate it represents a substantial loss of human capital and resources.
Reviewing the Challenges and Opportunities
What stands in the way of increasing credential attainment among community college students? In pursuit of answers, this review examines 25 years of academic
and policy research on community college student persistence.
Methodological Approach
Articles were identified with a search of the Educational Resources Information
Center, Education Full Text, and Social Sciences Abstracts using combinations of
keywords (community college student, 2-year student, degree completion, persistence, momentum, and barriers), resulting in the location of 2,200 studies published
since 1985. Reference lists of relevant books, articles, and reports from this literature, as well as conference proceedings and dissertation abstracts, were consulted.
To include relevant nonacademic work, the Google search engine was used, and
publication listings of major nonprofit organizations funding or conducting
research on community colleges (e.g., MDRC, Jobs for the Future, RAND, the
Lumina Foundation) were examined. The author also corresponded with researchers at the Community College Research Center in New York to inquire as to unpublished research, and several reviewed the list of studies to be included and suggested
additions.
After the more than 3,000 studies produced by that search were culled to identify
those which dealt with independent data sets, the resulting list of approximately
440
Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net by guest on December 8, 2011
Improving Community College Student Success
750 studies were filtered according to two criteria: (1) They used quantitative or
qualitative methods that could rigorously address the research questions, and (2)
quantitative studies needed to produce findings that could reasonably be generalized beyond the sample to the larger population of community college students.
Rigorous research was defined as using sufficient and appropriate data to address
the research question and following a research design that made it possible to
answer the questions posed. For example, for studies addressing questions of
“what works” or program effectiveness, the research had to be designed appropriately to satisfactorily rule out competing explanations, providing grounds for
causal inference. For studies examining mechanisms or pathways promoting college success (e.g., interviewing studies), the approach to sampling and data collection had to be transparent and defensible. Studies meeting those criteria were
included in the final review (n = 300; some are not reflected in the reference list
because of space constraints).
Analytic Approach
For the purposes of analysis, studies were grouped into those focusing on (a) the
macro-level opportunity structure; (b) institutional practices; and (c) the social,
economic, and academic attributes students bring to college. Particular attention
was paid to studies that discuss the relationships and interactions between individuals and institutions, institutions and policy settings, or some combination of
the three.
A multilevel conceptual model was used for several reasons. First, this approach
draws attention to the structural constraints governing individual decision-making.
Absent sufficient consideration of structure, many studies (and policies) target
individuals’ choices as if they are unconstrained. As Hearn (2006) notes, it is not
uncommon for models of student success to neglect key relationships between
societal structure and stratification processes, state and federal politics, policy
implementation, and student outcomes. This review begins to remedy that problem. Second, this approach emphasizes the breadth of ways policy makers could
address the same outcome, opening up possibilities for creative solutions. Third,
this frame builds on that of several other contemporary researchers, including
those involved in the National Postsecondary Education Cooperative’s initiative on
college student success (e.g., Hearn, 2006; Kuh, Kinzie, Buckley, Bridges, &
Hayek, 2006; Perna, 2006; Perna & Thomas, 2006, forthcoming). At the same
time, it extends that work by focusing on factors affecting community college success in particular.
The Opportunity Structure Affecting Community College Success
An opportunity structure denotes those exogenous factors either limiting or facilitating the work of community colleges and the success of their students. Its existence may reflect our societal need for status hierarchies, playing an important role
in preserving our culture (Yankelovich, 1991). Through political and financial
decisions, politics, and practices, we maintain a social order that constrains the
educational opportunities of some and promote those of others.
The community college itself is sometimes cast as an actor in a differentiated
opportunity structure that legitimates inequality (Brint and Karabel, 1989). One of
the most robust streams of literature centers on the question of whether community
441
Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net by guest on December 8, 2011
Goldrick-Rab
colleges provide a democratizing or diversionary influence on students. Over the
last three decades, dozens of empirical studies conducted by sociologists and economists have generally concluded (with a few exceptions) that the positive, “democratizing” effect of community college slightly outweighs the negative,
“diversionary” influence of drawing students away from baccalaureate-granting
colleges (e.g., Alba & Lavin, 1981; Alfonso, 2006; Anderson, 1981; Breneman &
Nelson, 1981; Doyle, 2008; Dougherty, 1987; Hilmer, 1997, 2000; Leigh & Gill,
2003; Long & Kurlaender, 2008; Melguizo, 2009; Reynolds, 2006; Reynolds &
DesJardins, 2009; Rouse 1995, 1998; Stephan, Rosenbaum, & Person, 2009;
Velez, 1985). These effects are the result of how the institutional actor (the community college) functions while structurally subordinated to multiple entities—
government, business, and 4-year colleges. Its actions are constrained by each of
these forces (Kyvik, 2008).
At the same time, the role of snobbery in perpetuating community college outcomes is often neglected. Since the founding of the public 2-year sector, many
have cast this sector as lesser than its counterparts. For example, although during
the early decades of the formation of community colleges, the media primarily
reported positively on their speedy growth (DeGenaro, 2006), others had already
begun to lament their existence. Writing in Educational Record in 1968, W. B.
Devall described community colleges as places that enforce “continued dependency, unrealistic aspirations, and wasted ‘general education’ ” (p. 169). This critique continued in the work of many researchers, particularly those studying the
colleges from the outside in (Oromaner, 1984). Today, less than 2% of all national
media coverage of education is devoted to community colleges (West, Whitehurst,
& Dionne, 2009). Although these public perceptions, including the “rhetoric of
inevitability” of poor outcomes, may be changing, the role that they play in informing and structuring decisions about the capacity of this educational sector should
not be overlooked (DeGenaro, 2006).
Power, Governance, and Funding
The work of community colleges is intimately connected to their position as publicly funded institutions whose origins, although widely disparate, stem primarily
from the actions of local and state actors (Dougherty, 1994). In some states they
developed from the desires of citizens for a nearby postsecondary institution, in
other cases grew out of normal (teachers) colleges, and in still other cases were
crafted by state legislatures. In all cases, they are distinctly public institutions,
beholden to multiple constituents, including legislators, the business community,
and families. They are often cast as a middle-ground between K-12 education and
higher education. Yet as Medsker wrote in 1956, community colleges “do not conform to the established patterns of either the institutions above them or those below
them” (p. 248). In fact, when movement has been in the direction away from this
tight community connection (as in the movement to globalize the community college) resistance has been substantial, with critics noting that community colleges
best serve the public interest by addressing problems unique to their very local
environments (Hanson, 2008).
The governance and funding structures of community colleges are tightly
linked, with the latter said to reflect the approaches and values of the former
(Mullin & Honeyman, 2008). At the same time, the substantial heterogeneity in
442
Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net by guest on December 8, 2011
Improving Community College Student Success
how community colleges are governed also means that numerous approaches are
used for financing community colleges. Since the mid-20th century, community
colleges have relied on states and localities for the lion’s share (nearly 60% nationally) of their revenues. In total, federal funds (including financial aid) amount to
only 15% of community college revenue (Breneman and Nelson, 1981; National
Center for Education Statistics, 2007). Additional support from state and local
sources fails to compensate for community colleges’ relative lack of federal support. Community colleges typically receive between $6,500 and $6,800 per fulltime equivalent student annually from state and local sources (Goldrick-Rab,
Harris, & Trostel, 2009).
Dependence on state and local funds makes colleges particularly susceptible to
fluctuations in the economy and, thus, state and local budgets (Dowd & Cheslock,
2006; Katsinas & Tollefson 2009). This dependence also makes colleges accountable
to local taxpayers and business leaders. It can drive decisions about the distribution
of time and resources, such as how much effort to invest in more lucrative programming including contract training. Many community colleges are following increasingly entrepreneurial paths, in turn diminishing the power of state governing
structures (Mullin & Honeyman, 2008). That entrepreneurialism contributes to
struggles to achieve student-focused goals while also bringing in necessary revenue.
Although it is difficult to establish a clear causal relationship between institutional expenditures and degree outcomes, some analyses indicate a positive relationship between the availability of resources per student and college degree
attainment (Bound, Lovenheim, & Turner, 2009). When an increase in enrollment
creates a crowding of students vying for scarce college resources, rates of degree
completion tend to decline (Bound & Turner, 2007; Kurlaender, Grodsky, &
Howell, 2009). This is precisely the situation faced by community colleges, which
have seen increases in student demand unmatched by increases in public subsidies
(Mellow & Heelan, 2008).
Research by Titus (2009) links several aspects of states’ higher education
finance policies to their bachelor’s degree productivity. Although not specifically
focused on predicting student-level outcomes at community colleges, his research
does indicate the importance of these structural factors. For example, even after
accounting for the endogeneity of such factors, Titus finds that the level of state
appropriations for higher education and the level of spending on need-based financial aid are positively related to BA production within states. At the same time, he
finds that in contrast to other research (e.g., Kienzl, Alfonso, & Melguizo, 2007),
labor market conditions (e.g., the unemployment rate) are not predictive of BA
production after other factors are accounted for.
It is also possible that the overall low average rates of spending on community
college students may contribute to the weakness of observable relationships
between spending and outcomes—because funding even at the highest level is
inadequate. For example, consider remedial education, which has notoriously low
rates of success. As described later in this review, the best remedial education is
said to be developmental, not only equipping students to learn content but also
teaching them how to succeed in college—yet few remedial courses are of this
quality. A cost evaluation of a high-quality remedial program in Massachusetts,
designed by a team of specialists, revealed that the costs of a high-quality remedial
program greatly exceed costs of typical remedial instruction (Dowd & Ventimiglia,
443
Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net by guest on December 8, 2011
Goldrick-Rab
2008). This evidence suggests that the quality of the typical remediation problems
is relatively low and may be related to inadequate funding— and that more extensive and expensive, high-quality programs could have a positive impact.
Goals and Incentives
The actions of community colleges and their students are also framed by an emphasis on college-going rather than college completion. Since the mid-20th century,
governments and philanthropies have played an active role in promoting access to
higher education but until recently most paid far less attention to whether students
finish college. This emphasis is reflected in how community colleges are funded.
Funding formulas tend to be based on enrollment. This approach rewards colleges
for getting students in the door but not for making sure those students succeed. In
theory, students would seek out colleges and programs where other students have
had success in finishing degrees, transferring to 4-year colleges, and getting jobs—
and those same colleges and programs would compete against one another to
attract students. But in practice, students lack information about college performance, and competition is limited because most campuses serve a primarily local
population (rather than a statewide or national population as in the case of 4-year
colleges and universities). The method by which most community colleges are
funded thus provides little incentive for institutions to focus on improving the quality of outcomes for their students. For example, among the mix of federal funds
and programs dedicated to the community college sector, very few aim to improve
institutional performance (Goldrick-Rab, Harris, & Trostel, 2009).
Financial Aid
Student financial aid is the single largest investment governments make in community colleges. Yet many of the rules and guidelines governing the distribution of
aid make it difficult for community college students to access and keep their financial aid. For example, although part-time enrollment may reflect a student’s need
to earn money to afford college (and many community college students enroll parttime), it simultaneously reduces aid eligibility. Students enrolled less than half
time are ineligible for any form of aid, and earnings from work are absorbed
quickly (especially for independent students) under the federal formula (GoldrickRab & Roksa, 2008; Lapovsky, 2008). In one study of low-income workers in six
different community colleges, participants reported concerns about the forgone
wages associated with reduced work when going to school, being rendered ineligible for financial aid because of having a working spouse, and not knowing
enough about their financial aid opportunities or even the existence of financial aid
(Matus-Grossman, Gooden, Wavelet, Diaz, & Seupersad, 2002).
Does a lack of financial aid affect momentum toward a degree? Clearly, students who receive financial aid may have characteristics that reduce the likelihood
they will complete college (and vice versa); thus, comparing the persistence of
recipients with nonrecipients will yield unsatisfactory results (Goldrick-Rab,
Harris, & Trostel, 2009; Hossler et al. 2009). Quantitative analyses that have
attempted to isolate effects of financial aid on persistence using nationally representative data sets have produced mixed findings, partly because of differences in
statistical techniques, sample, and the time frame under study (Dowd & Coury, 2006;
444
Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net by guest on December 8, 2011
Improving Community College Student Success
Hossler et al. 2009). Recent rigorous analyses of the effects of aid on persistence
reveal that students who receive financial aid appear more likely to make consistent progress in college. For example, receiving a Pell Grant appears to decrease
the probability of withdrawal among students during their first 2 years of college
(Bettinger, 2004). Conversely, Dowd and Coury (2006) found that loans had no
effect on degree completion when they are taken out by community college students in the first year and had negative effects on persistence. Furthermore, grants
and work study had no significant effects. But aid may represent more to students
than money. A study by DesJardins, Ahlburg, and McCall (2002) indicates that
both the type of aid and the timing of aid may affect student retention; for example,
scholarships given earlier during college appear to be more effective at preventing
stopout. Overall, reviews of the effects of traditional need-based grants indicate
that they hold promise for promoting persistence among community college students (Mundel, 2008).
Institutional Differentiation
The requirement that community college students move institutions in order to
complete a bachelor’s degree introduces another potential structural barrier to student success. Although institutional differentiation arguably expands opportunities
by increasing the number of slots available in postsecondary education, it may also
restrict opportunities if transfer across schools is difficult (Shavit, Arum, &
Gamoran, 2007). This is the case in the United States, where the system does not
facilitate the equitable flow of all students among all schools. Some students who
change schools lose a portion of the credits they earned at the last institution they
attended, fail to piece together a coherent curriculum of courses, and struggle to
find the means with which to pay for college and travel to school (Bailey, 2003;
McCormick, 2003; Prager, 2001).
Studies that compare the outcomes of students who successfully transfer from
community to 4-year colleges with students who begin at 4-year colleges and rise
to junior year status provide some of the strongest evidence that institutional differentiation (put another way, the need to transfer) is itself a prime barrier to degree
completion. One particularly rigorous analysis (which includes corrections for differences in how students initially select into college) finds that the type of first
college attended does not contribute to disparities in bachelor’s degree completion
rates among low students of low socioeconomic statues—after the initial transfer
is accounted for (Melguizo & Dowd, 2009). The findings support the idea that
reducing structural barriers between the 2- and 4-year sectors may cause completion rates among community college entrants to rise.
A related issue is the ability of policy makers to track the progress of students
across colleges and universities in order to examine progress and assess program
and policy effectiveness. Student-unit record data allow for individual outcomes to
be tracked across institutions and for educational employment outcomes to be
linked. Most states do not have the requisite data systems to link K-12 and postsecondary education or to link across sectors within postsecondary education. This
severely limits the potential for states to refocus community college on outcomes,
measure the cost-effectiveness of institutional practices, or identify key areas for
reform (Data Quality Campaign, 2008; L’Orange & Ewell, 2006).
445
Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net by guest on December 8, 2011
Interactions between Social and Educational Policymaking
Community college student success is affected not only by policies that are explicitly intended to influence educational outcomes in particular but also by social
policies. For example, for much of the latter half of the 20th century, one route to
college access for women in poverty with children was through the welfare system.
Under the federal program Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC),
some welfare recipients received free tuition and child care so that they might
attend college. Following the passage of the 1996 Personal Responsibility Work
Opportunity and Reconciliation Act (PRWORA), which put recipients directly into
work, there were significant declines in the number of poor women allowed access
to college via this route (Shaw, Goldrick-Rab, Mazzeo, & Jacobs, 2006). Poor
women (and poor men) were also affected by the 1998 Workforce Investment Act
(WIA), a workforce development policy that sharply curbed access to job training.
Whereas under the Job Training and Partnership Act, community colleges across
the country enrolled thousands of low-income adults in both long-term and shortterm training programs, those numbers dropped dramatically under WIA.
Moreover, the federal welfare reform and WIA worked in tandem to reduce the
incentives for community colleges to develop and provide programs for the truly
poor, via the development of an accountability regime that increased paperwork
and decreased funding. Thus, today it is harder than ever for the poorest adults to
find ways to afford attendance at community college, and to find support if they do
enroll.
Institutional Practices Affecting Community College Success
Most interventions intended to generate reform and improvement are targeted at
colleges and universities. This section considers research evidence as to the relationship between different kinds of institutional practices and student outcomes.
Access to Credit-Bearing Coursework
A lack of academic preparation does not preclude community college enrollment,
but it does affect the transition to college credit-bearing coursework. The practice of
separating noncredit basic skills instruction from the provision of academic college
coursework is common and affects large numbers of students (Jacobs & TolbertBynum, 2008; Van Noy, Jacobs, Korey, Bailey, & Hughes, 2008). Many are older
adults from disadvantaged backgrounds, who often enter higher education with low
levels of literacy. Nationally, 57% of 2-year institutions rank the academic preparation of their entering students as fair or poor (El-Khawas & Knopp, 1996; Lewis,
Farris, & Greene, 1996). For students who did not complete a high school diploma,
some period of enrollment in Adult Basic Education (ABE) coursework is necessary
prior to enrollment in the most fundamental college-entry courses.
There has been a shift in recent decades toward providing ABE in community
colleges rather than the K-12 sector (Duke & Strawn, 2008; Jacobs & TolbertBynum, 2008; Morest, 2004). Most empirical studies find that ABE programs are
of low quality and have little economic or educational impact in terms of helping
students move on to college-level work (D’Amico, 1997; Pauly & DiMeo, 1996).
For example, in a study of students in Washington State’s community and technical
446
Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net by guest on December 8, 2011
Improving Community College Student Success
colleges, Prince and Jenkins (2005) found that only 13% of adults who started in
ESL programs earned any college credits during the next 5 years, and only 30% of
students in ABE and GED programs transitioned to college-credit courses during
that time. Other studies show that half of all ABE students drop out in less than 10
weeks, and only a small proportion of GED students who earn that credential then
go on to college-level coursework (Alamprese, 2005; Jobs for the Future, 2004).
As a result, ABE classrooms often experience “attendance turbulence,” impelling
some administrators to use an open-entry/open-exit system via which adult learners can come and go (Sticht, MacDonald, Erickson, 1998; Strucker 2006). It is
unsurprising that an analysis of the results of 22 of the most credible outcome studies in adult education found that only 5 identified earnings gains and 4 identified
student test scores gains (Beder, 1999).
Although research suggests that economic and personal factors mediate the
relationship between basic education and adult outcomes (D’Amico, 1999), there
is also evidence that institutional practices matter for the quality of ABE. In particular, links between ABE and further educational opportunities and to employers
are also vital aspects of program quality; traditionally, adult basic education programs have weak or nonexistent links with advanced certificate and degree programs (Alamprese, 2005; Jacobs & Tolbert-Bynum, 2008). As Jacobs and
Tolbert-Bynum put it, “Currently, the lack of a relationship between ABE and
degree-granting activities means that ABE is often insufficiently interesting to students to serve as an enticement for continuing enrollment in college … even students who are interested in pursuing a college degree do not know how to do so”
(2008, p. 5).
These issues also affect high school graduates in need of additional skills development. Given that students bound for community colleges are less likely to take
and succeed in rigorous courses while in secondary school, it is predictable that for
more than two-fifths of entering community college students the first year is characterized by participation in remedial education (National Center for Education
Statistics, 2003). Most community college students (90%) spend a year or less in
remediation, and they are most often engaged in remedial math courses rather than
writing or reading. Students who require remedial coursework appear less likely
to complete any type of credential at a community college (Bailey, Calcagno,
Jenkins, Leinbach, & Kienzl, 2005).
The debates surrounding remedial education are extensive and include whether
remedial coursework should be integrated with credit-bearing coursework to
increase its quality and effectiveness and, relatedly, where (e.g., at a 2-year vs. a
4-year college) it should be offered (Shaw, 1997; Zeitlin & Markus, 1996). Another
question often asked is whether high rates of remediation stem from institutional
disjunctures between K-12 and postsecondary education, such as a misalignment
of coursework and expectations. At the heart of these debates is a critical question:
whether low rates of college completion among remedial students means that
remediation has deleterious effects on student progress (Bailey, 2009). It is not an
easy question to answer, because students who take remedial coursework differ in
both observable and unobservable ways from students who do not. Analysts must
therefore take care to distinguish the process of selection into remediation from
any effects of remediation on later outcomes.
447
Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net by guest on December 8, 2011
Goldrick-Rab
Some recent rigorous studies of remedial education in community colleges
have found short-term positive effects on student persistence (Attewell, Lavin,
Domina, & Levey, 2006; Bettinger & Long, 2005; Calcagno & Long, 2008;
Jepsen 2006; Moss & Yeaton, 2006), whereas other rigorous studies find no
impacts on degree completion (Calcagno & Long, 2008; Martorell & McFarlin
2007). This means that even though students in remediation are less likely to
complete college degrees, that may not be attributable to remedial education
itself. The impact also appears to vary by the type of remedial coursework taken,
although the findings are inconsistent in this regard. In one study the effects were
notably larger for remedial coursework in reading and writing when compared
with the effects of math coursework (Attewell et al., 2006), but other studies have
found positive effects of math remediation, whereas the results for English remediation suggested no conclusive positive or negative impact on students (Bettinger
& Long, 2005; Kolajo, 2004).
Some of the strongest evidence that institutional practices regarding academic
coursework affect student success comes from two studies indicating that certain
courses act as “gatekeepers” to college completion (Calcagno et al., 2006; Roksa,
Jenkins, Jaggars, Zeidenberg, & Cho, 2009). Passing gatekeeper math and writing
courses enables access to higher level coursework, significantly contributing to
student progress. That relationship appears to hold even after accounting for differences in students taking and not taking gatekeeper courses. For example, a study
in Florida found that among comparable students in remedial writing courses,
those who passed the first-year composition course were more than twice as likely
to graduate when compared with those who did not pass that course (Calcagno
et al., 2006). A study of Virginia community college students showed that gatekeeper
courses appear to offer similar benefits in that state (Roksa et al., 2009). And yet
many students fail to take any gatekeeper courses at all. The low rates of gatekeeper course enrollment among academically well-prepared Virginia community
college students in particular suggest that institutional factors are likely contributing to this problem (Jenkins, Jaggars, & Roksa, 2009).
Pedagogical Practices
The content and quality of instruction in the community college sector is widely
debated (Perin, 2001). Part of the challenge stems from heterogeneity among
students. In addition, there is general consensus that instruction for adults needs
to integrate curricular content with practical applications, particularly in entrylevel courses (Badway & Grubb, 1997; Perin, 2001). However, such “contextualized” teaching and learning strategies are relatively uncommon. For example,
Pauly and DiMeo (1996) found that only 16% of the adult basic education programs that they studied made any effort to link basic education and the world of
work. In a 1994 survey of 75 remediation and basic skills providers, only 2 providers reported that they linked curriculum with vocational skills training (Grubb
& Kalman, 1994). Instead, texts and content were separated from context in what
Grubb calls the “skills and drills” approach (1996, p. 72). Similarly, a study of
271 adult literacy programs revealed that 203 used instructional strategies and
materials that were devoid of strong connections to the life-context and real-world
situations learners faced, including the workplace (Purcell-Gates, Degener, &
Jacobsen, 1998).
448
Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net by guest on December 8, 2011
Improving Community College Student Success
Although research has linked levels of instruction spending to community college outcomes, community colleges often lack the resources to support innovative
practices or to fund the developmental costs for new and innovative teaching
approaches (Bailey, Jenkins, & Leinbach, T., 2005). There are some competitive
grant programs that support innovation in higher education, such as the Fund for
the Improvement of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE), but these grants have historically been small in size and scope and rarely used strategically (Goldrick-Rab,
Harris, & Trostel, 2009).
A related issue is the need for technological improvements to classrooms that
must accompany innovative teaching practices. A recent survey of community college
leaders revealed that all four of the most pressing facilities needs are instructionrelated—those related to lab space, general classroom space, computer lab space,
and office space (Katsinas & Tollefson, 2009).
Faculty
Although there is a robust literature on the effects of teachers on student outcomes
in the K-12 arena, among studies of community college student success the role of
faculty is often neglected (for notable exceptions see Grubb, 1999; Outcalt, 2000).
This seems a remarkable omission, especially given that some of the conditions
under which these faculty members work, including a reliance on adjunct faculty,
a lack of professional development opportunities, and shortages in key fields, have
been linked (at least via correlational studies) with student outcomes (Calcagno,
Bailey, Jenkins, Kienzl, & Leinbach, 2008; Brock et al., 2007).
Given limited resources available for instructional costs, it is no surprise that community colleges rely very heavily on part-time adjunct lecturers who often teach
multiple courses at multiple colleges and receive low wages and no benefits (Bailey,
Jenkins, & Leinbach, 2005). Some analyses identify positive effects of adjuncts on
specific types of course-taking, whereas others find an overall negative effect on
student persistence (for a summary, see Bettinger & Long, 2006).
Compared with professors at 4-year institutions, whose salaries include pay for
time spent on activities other than teaching, community college professors have little
incentive to invest in their own professional development or spend their scarce time
learning how to effectively use new technology. Like professors elsewhere, community college faculty need resources for planning and curriculum development and for
regular meetings to discuss teaching, refine lessons, and assess performance.
Unfortunately, at many community colleges the most common forms of professional
development are the kinds of one-time workshops that research shows are ineffective.
Again, this problem stems in part from a lack of resources for faculty development: In
many states funds for college faculty development are limited or have declined in
recent years (Chancellor’s Office of the California Community Colleges, 2009).
Another issue topping the list of concerns among community college administrators is a severe shortage of faculty in nursing, allied health, and Science,
Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (Hardy, Katsinas, & Bush, 2007).
Teachers in these fields are in high demand, making it more difficult to attract and
retain these teachers. They have numerous other job opportunities, most of which
pay higher wages and offer better benefits. Shortages in such specialized fields are
not new, but compounding the problem for community colleges is that two thirds
of their faculty members are between the ages of 45 and 64 (Snyder, Dillow, &
449
Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net by guest on December 8, 2011
Goldrick-Rab
Hoffman, 2008) so although hiring younger and, more importantly, less expensive
faculty may be an attractive option, the pool of qualified applicants with these
specific in-demand skills may be quite small.
Informational Requirements
By virtue of their extensive course catalogues and numerous services, coupled with
the diverse array of students they serve, community colleges provide ample opportunities but—according to some—insufficient information with which to guide
students through choosing among opportunities. As a result of substantial informational requirements accompanied by too little advising, some students may take
courses they do not need, spend a longer period of time in coursework that financial aid will not fund, and eventually drop out (Grubb, 2006; Rosenbaum et al.,
2006).
For example, many community college students have little knowledge about
course requirements and in some cases are not even aware that the classes they are
taking are remedial and do not count toward a degree (Person, Rosenbaum, & DeilAmen, 2006). This makes academic advising important to students’ chances of
success; one study finds that this is especially true for students with academic
deficiencies (Bahr, 2008). When community colleges do not explicitly provide the
information and social skills their students need, students face obstacles in finishing college and moving into the labor force (Deil-Amen, 2006).
Organizational Learning
A final issue regarding institutional practices has to do with how community college administrators make decisions. In particular, there is a growing movement to
encourage educators to use data to identify opportunities for improved institutional
performance and enhanced student outcomes. Despite widespread interest in using
data to drive decision making, researchers have identified obstacles to integrating
findings from institutional research into daily practice. For example, many community colleges lack sufficient numbers of trained researchers to conduct analyses
and expertly clean student-level data and organize it for research purposes (Morest
& Jenkins, 2007). There is also some debate over whether data should be leveraged
as part of a “culture of evidence” in which data drives decisions or a “culture of
inquiry” in which practitioners take center stage (Bailey & Alfonso, 2005; Dowd,
2005). On a theoretical level, at least, helping institutional leaders view evidence
of student outcomes and discuss those outcomes should facilitate improvements
(Bensimon, 2004; Jenkins, 2007; Jenkins & Kerrigan, 2009; Zachry & Orr, 2009).
At the same time, although establishing a culture of evidence may be a necessary
condition to improving student success, it is unlikely to be sufficient, because
adoption of new practices by administrators does not always follow (Jenkins &
Kerrigan, 2009).
Social Inequalities Affecting Community College Success
When considering the root causes of low rates of completion among community
college students, many analysts begin with a discussion of student characteristics.
The primary point of these efforts is to describe the substantial barriers community
college students face and therefore the challenges that institutions must overcome to help students succeed in earning degrees. This emphasis is often echoed
450
Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net by guest on December 8, 2011
Improving Community College Student Success
by community college practitioners who argue that insufficient attention to the
wide variation in students’ preparation and educational expectations leads to misleading assessment of success and unfairly results in too much attention paid to
factors outside of colleges’ control (Bailey, Jenkins, & Leinbach, 2005). Therefore,
in this next section I examine research on how student attributes affect the likelihood of success in the community college sector.
Social Inequalities and Student Characteristics
Relative to other undergraduates, students attending the nation’s 2-year public colleges come from a wider range of family backgrounds. For example, 40% of undergraduates enrolled at community colleges in 2008 were non-White, 38% came
from families where neither parent was educated beyond high school, and 56%
were women (in comparison, the corresponding figures for students at public
4-year institutions are 33%, 25%, and 53%).
The social and economic characteristics of community college students are
often termed demographic (implying that they are hereditary) rather than ascriptive (meaning that they reflect positions in a stratification system). Correspondingly,
the greater racial, socioeconomic, and gender diversity among community college
goers is often treated as an explanation for institutional outcomes. But the compositional diversity of community colleges itself reflects social inequalities, which
could be taken into account when we attempt to move beyond simple explanations
to identify root causes. In other words, although the observation that students’
characteristics are correlated with college outcomes is important, it does not tell us
the mechanisms through which those relationships operate—or what we can do
about it. For example, we can move beyond stating that community colleges serve
more students from low socioeconomic backgrounds who are less likely to complete college and instead discuss the underlying reasons why such a relationship
exists. Doing so increases the potential for acting on those underlying inequalities.
Academic Challenges
One of the most widely accepted lessons from research on college success is that
all students, regardless of what type of college they plan to attend, need to be academically prepared. For example, Adelman (1999, 2006) identified a “toolbox” of
high school courses considered crucial for preparing a student for postsecondary
participation, including those in math, science, and foreign language. Students
whose high school curricula include advanced levels of these courses tend to perform better in college, even after high school grades and standardized test scores
are held constant. Similarly, Roderick, Nagaoka, Coca, and Moeller (2008, 2009)
point toward a set of skills required for college readiness that includes academic
content knowledge and basic skills as well as core academic skills. Measures of
performance on these skills (e.g., via coursework, achievement test scores, and
grades) indicate their importance in predicting college outcomes and their lack of
integration into the work of many high schools.
There is widespread acknowledgement that students enjoy differential access to
academic preparation for college: Economically disadvantaged and minority high
school students are more likely to receive secondary schooling in vocational rather
than academic tracks; take fewer math and science courses; and attend schools with
fewer resources, less-qualified teachers, and a lack of college prep coursework
451
Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net by guest on December 8, 2011
Goldrick-Rab
(Cabrera, Burkum, & La Nasa, 2005; Gamoran, Porter, Smithson, & White, 1997;
Nora & Rendon, 1990; Orfield, 1992; Roderick, Nagaoka, Coca, & Moeller, 2008,
2009; Terenzini, Cabrera, & Bernal, 2001). This is especially problematic given
empirical evidence that the benefits of strong high school preparation are greater
for socioeconomically disadvantaged students (Cabrera et al., 2005). Moreover,
many community college–bound students are unaware of the need to engage in
rigorous college prep coursework, partly because of the false perception that opendoor institutions have no academic requirements (Schneider & Stevenson, 1999;
Person et al., 2006; Rosenbaum et al., 2006). Indeed, some studies indicate a broad
lack of awareness of placement testing and its consequences (Deil-Amen &
Rosenbaum, 2002; Person et al., 2006). The concentration of poor and minority
students in schools with other poor and/or minority students exacerbates the
uneven distribution of both academic opportunities and “college knowledge,”
because students with greater needs are isolated from more advantaged students
(Roderick, Nagaoka, & Coca, 2009).
Economic Challenges
Students also face significant challenges in figuring out how to pay for college
(Hossler & Vesper, 1993; Roderick, Nagaoka, Coca, & Moeller, 2008, 2009; St.
John, 1991). Affordability is an important reason why a disproportionate number
of low-income and minority students do not attend college or do not complete a
college degree once enrolled (Mumper, 1993; Perna, 2002). Trends in financial aid
toward providing less need-based aid (and more merit-based aid) and devoting
more funding to loans rather than grants have reduced the chances that college
students from low-income families will enter college or complete a degree
(Goldrick-Rab, Harris, & Trostel, 2009; Orfield, 1992; Perna, 1998, 2002; St.
John, 1990).
Knowledge of how to pay for college is concentrated in families where at least
one parent attended higher education. First-generation students are less likely to
receive high-quality information about financial aid opportunities and, in turn, are
less likely to apply to college or file the federal application for student aid, which
is required for them to receive grants or loans (DesJardins, Ahlburg, & McCall,
2006; Roderick, Nagaoka, Coca, & Moeller, 2008, 2009). Both the quantity and
quality of college financing information that families receive differ by social class:
Economically advantaged students learn about college and how to pay for it from
a variety of sources, whereas poor students often have to rely on their high school
counselors, largely because most persons in their circle of influence (e.g., family
members, close friends) did not attend college (Cabrera et al., 2005; McDonough,
1997; Roderick, Nagaoka, Coca, & Moeller, 2008, 2009). As a result, disadvantaged parents are less likely to feel they can predict the cost of college, although
they do not necessarily make more errors in their cost estimates when they do
provide them (Avery & Kane, 2004; Grodsky & Jones 2007). When they do occur,
inaccuracies in cost estimates may discourage some students from any form of
college attendance (Avery & Kane, 2004).
Social and Informational Hurdles
Almost regardless of family background, the educational expectations of today’s
traditional-aged students are uniformly high. But expectations do not always
452
Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net by guest on December 8, 2011
Improving Community College Student Success
translate into the development of a concrete and realistic plan or commitment to a
future course of behavior (Morgan, 2005; Roderick, Nagaoka, Coca, & Moeller,
2009). Students from socioeconomically disadvantaged family backgrounds are
less likely to possess a clear sense of how to negotiate either the college social or
academic context. As a result, when these students are confronted with multiple
pathways and options (with regard to courses, programs of study, etc), they are
more likely to make ineffective choices (Alfonso, 2004; Person et al., 2006;
Roderick, Nagaoka, Coca, & Moeller, 2008, 2009). And there is evidence that educational choices matter. In a country where parents with greater resources tend to
live in school districts with more educational opportunities, it is difficult to disentangle students’ educational experiences in primary and secondary school from
early familial experiences. However, comparisons among students from similar
family backgrounds but with different types of high school education reveal that
the quality of academic coursework and performance in that coursework are particularly strong predictors of both college entry and subsequent performance (Nora
& Rendon, 1990; St. John, 1991).
Whether a student has a college-educated parent influences the kind of information about college that she accumulates in the years leading up to choosing a
college (Person et al., 2006). For example, the process of college selection for
Latino students (who disproportionately do not have college-educated parents)
has been described as a “chain of enrollment,” where friends and family members
provide each other with information and support and ultimately follow one
another into specific institutions (Person & Rosenbaum, 2006; Person et al., 2006;
Rosenbaum et al., 2006). The jobs held by a student’s parents may also create
advantages or disadvantages by, for example, opening doors to easier admissions
or by introducing insecurity (when the labor market cannot sustain availability of
opportunities).
Attendance Patterns
Many facets of students’ attendance patterns have been linked to chances for college success. For example, research indicates a strong association between an
undisrupted transition to college and the likelihood of degree completion, such that
individuals who make a timely transition into college without a significant period
of delay after high school are substantially more likely to complete a credential or
degree during college (Adelman, 2006; Bozick & DeLuca, 2005; Goldrick-Rab &
Han, 2010; Rowan-Kenyon, 2007). Yet 17% of high school graduates who begin
college at a community college delay that initial enrollment for 8 months or more
(Adelman, 2005). The ability to make a seamless transition into community college depends not only on academic performance in high school but also on family
background, sociodemographic characteristics, and educational expectations
(Goldrick-Rab & Han, 2010).
Despite empirical evidence indicating that continuous, full-time enrollment is
the optimal scenario for degree completion, many community college students find
that route impossible to follow. Nearly one fourth of them stop out from college
within 9 months of initial enrollment. Only 31% of community college students
enroll exclusively full time; indeed, 26% enroll less than half time. Part-time
enrollment may result from competing demands with work or family or from an
inability to afford full-time enrollment. One fifth of community college students
453
Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net by guest on December 8, 2011
Goldrick-Rab
are married parents, 15% are single parents, and 10% are married without children
(Horn & Nevill, 2006).
Although the most recognized form of student mobility is the upward transfer
from a 2-year to a 4-year school, researchers have identified more than a dozen
different types of multi-institutional attendance (Adelman, 2004; McCormick,
2003). Analyses of national transcript data reveal that students from the lowest
socioeconomic bracket are disproportionately likely to engage in mobility patterns
involving discontinuities in enrollment and “reverse” movement from 4-year to
2-year schools—aspects of mobility associated with much lower odds of completion (Goldrick-Rab & Pfeffer, 2009).
Success in postsecondary education is also affected by the age at which a
student enters college. What some call a growing “disorderliness” in the traditional sequence of life events has resulted in delayed college entry for some and
incomplete progress and later re-entry for others (Jacobs & King, 2002; Rindfuss,
Swicegood, & Rosenfeld, 1987). Fifty-three percent of community college students are over age 23, and 35% are age 30 or older (Horn & Nevill, 2006).
Women are more likely than men to enroll in community college later in life,
and, according to one study, more than four fifths of women entering college
after age 25 are actually reenrolling (Jacobs & King, 2002). Older students are
disproportionately likely to juggle enrollment with work and family and thus
more likely to enroll part time and also to experience life events such as marriage, childbirth, or divorce, which compete with schooling. In an analysis of the
college completion rates of women over the age of 25, Jacobs and King (2002)
found that these factors (particularly part-time enrollment)—rather than a student’s entering age—accounted for the observed lower rates of completion
among older students.
Discussion and Conclusions
Researchers and policy makers agree that improving rates of success among community college students is a top educational priority. Given all of the challenges
community colleges face, what policies and practices represent the most promising
areas for reform? Table 1 highlights 14 of the most popular and/or well-evaluated
efforts. They all have received substantial financial or political support from state
and local governments as well as philanthropies. They include approaches related
to changing the opportunity structure (affecting federal and state funding mechanisms, financial aid processes, and institutional differentiation), institutional practices (changing pedagogical and organizational approaches), and incentives to
change student behavior (particularly with regard to academic preparation and
affordability). One area that is popularly discussed but not addressed here (because
of the dearth of research in the public 2-year sector) is the potential for online solutions (for more, see U.S. Department of Education, 2009).
Unfortunately much of the best evidence on potential reforms is new—and
scarce. Many studies purport to identify a set of best practices but are only able to
produce suggestive conclusions that cannot tell policy makers how any one practice could create higher rates of student success (e.g., see Habley & McClanahan,
2004). A much more rigorous research agenda focused on community college
students is needed to inform and evaluate future actions.
454
Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net by guest on December 8, 2011
Table 1
Potential areas for reforming community colleges
Practice/initiative
Key features
Reforms targeting the opportunity
structure
Student Aid and Fiscal
Part of President Obama’s 2010 budget;
Responsibility Act of 2009:
$2.5 billion designated for state–federal
College Access and
partnerships; goal is to identify—through
Completion Fund (pending)
rigorous evaluation—practices that increase
college attainment and bring them to scale
(Moltz, 2009).
Performance-based funding
Tying 1%–5% of community college funding
to outcomes; national associations
representing community college presidents
and trustees are working together on a
voluntary framework of accountability
(Dougherty, 2009).
FAFSA simplification
Reducing questions used to determine aid
eligibility to increase effectiveness (Dynarski
& Scott-Clayton, 2008); results of a recent
experimental evaluation of the effects of
simplification on college-going indicate
positive impacts on college enrollment and
choice (Bettinger, Long, & Oreopolous,
2009).
Articulation agreements
Policies intended to ensure smooth transfer of
coursework between institutions; evidence
is mixed as to effectiveness (Anderson,
Alfonso, & Sun, 2006; Anderson, Sun, &
Alfonso, 2006; Gross & Goldhaber, 2009;
Roksa & Keith, 2008; Roska, 2009; Roksa &
Calcagno, 2010).
Community college
Allowing community colleges to grant
baccalaureate
bachelor’s degrees is increasingly popular,
although there is not yet any evidence of
effectiveness (Floyd & Walker, 2009).
Reforms targeting institutional
practice
Career pathways
“A series of connected education and training
programs and support services that enable
individuals to secure employment within a
specific industry or occupational sector, and
to advance over time to successively higher
levels of education and employment within
that sector” (Jenkins, 2006, p. 6). Attracting
substantial philanthropic support.
(Continued)
455
Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net by guest on December 8, 2011
TABLE 1 (continued)
Practice/initiative
Key features
Contextualized learning
Learning communities
Student life skills courses/
success centers
Smaller counselor–student
ratios
Reforms targeting students
Dual enrollment
Early assessment programs
Connecting basic skills instruction to real
world settings, helping adults progress to
college-credit–bearing classes; a study of
Washington State’s I-BEST program is the
best evidence of effectiveness (Jenkins,
Zeidenberg, & Kienzl, 2009).
Model in which instruction is organized
thematically and cohorts of students take
multiple classes together. An experimental
evaluation found mixed results: Whereas
students in the program group reported
feeling more integrated into college
life, taking more courses, earning more
credits, and moving more quickly through
developmental English requirements, the
program did not appear to increase college
persistence (Scrivener et al., 2008).
Orientation courses that attend to different
learning styles and introduce study skills,
time management, and effective college
habits. An analysis of a course in Florida
found higher rates of success over a 5-year
period (Zeidenberg, Jenkins, & Calcagno
2007). An experimental study targeting
success “centers” to students on probation
produced positive increases in credits and
GPA (Scrivener, Sommo, & Collado, 2009).
A randomized evaluation of two Ohio
community colleges found that reducing
counselor caseload produced short-term
positive impacts (Scrivener & Weiss, 2009).
Designed to move students more seamlessly
from high school to college by allowing
students to earn college credit while still in
high school. Several studies indicate positive
impacts (An, 2009; Mechur-Karp et al.,
2008).
Provides high school juniors with feedback
on their likelihood of needing college-level
remediation. Results indicate that doing so
does not appear to discourage students from
later enrolling in college but does significantly
reduce their chances of needing English
or math remediation when they do enroll
(Howell, Kurlaender, & Grodsky, 2009).
(Continued)
456
Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net by guest on December 8, 2011
TABLE 1 (continued)
Practice/initiative
Key features
Performance-based
scholarships
Emergency financial aid
Need-based financial aid tied to GPA and/or
credit intensity requirements; aid paid in
installments. One randomized trial in New
Orleans found positive impacts on credits
(Richburg-Hayes, 2009).
Funds provided to help students quickly meet
financial obligations. Nonexperimental
evidence suggest this helps keep students
enrolled (Geckeler, Beach, Pih, & Yan, 2005).
Note. FAFSA = Free Application for Federal Student Aid
Future research to identify additional promising practices and policies should
continue to take into account each of the levels of influence identified in this
review. There is a tendency in studies of community colleges to solely emphasize
the constraints colleges face that stem from the many needs of their students.
Although student-level factors appear to be more important in predicting student
outcomes than institutional or structural factors, the possibility remains that these
relationships are constrained by the data available to include in statistical models
and how those models are constructed (Bailey, Jenkins, & Leinbach, 2005).
One way to stimulate a shift in reform emphasis is to reorient the measurement
of student success to account for structural and institutional constraints. Although
it is becoming common, for example, to adjust calculations of institutional graduation rates to reflect the level of financial need of enrolled students (e.g., see Taylor
et al., 2009), it remains less common to also adjust those calculations for relative
state support or institutional expenditures (such as suggested by Gold, 2006, and
Bailey, Jenkins, & Leinbach, 2005). The move to performance-based funding and
greater accountability should be accompanied by shifts in measurement and calculations of success.
It is particularly important that we identify creative ways to test the effects of
new financial investments in community colleges and assess their intended and
unintended consequences. The relationship between monetary investments (spending) and student outcomes is far from conclusive, and community colleges—like
all public institutions in higher education—face significant budget constraints.
State support, although rebounding slightly in the past year, has steadily eroded
over time, and prospects for the future look bleak (Dembicki, 2008). Any new
federal support will likely be distributed unevenly across states and colleges, which
in turn are experiencing the recession in different ways. This may provide some
enhanced opportunities to assess how colleges with more or less resources produce
higher or lower graduation rates.
Among those institutional practices deserving of more careful analysis are
learning communities, first-year support service programs, and adult literacy
programs. As Comings and Soricone (2006) have noted, most studies of such
programs lack longitudinal samples and/or appropriate comparison groups,
and, perhaps most troubling, implemented programs often deviate from their
457
Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net by guest on December 8, 2011
Goldrick-Rab
intentional intervention designs. Thus, it is difficult to determine whether the programs truly increase academic momentum or whether they simply attract students
more likely to make academic progress in the first place, and it is hard to compare
the conditions under which programs are more or less successful in order to draw
lessons about how to improve program effectiveness. Thus, there is significant
demand for more research using experimental or quasi-experimental methods to
test specific curricula and support services and to examine effects for subgroups of
learners (Comings & Soricone, 2006).
We also need to know much more about how faculty members affect student
success in community colleges. Higher education is a labor-intensive industry, and
investments in instruction are particularly expensive. Although the reliance on
part-time faculty is unlikely to subside in coming years, more evidence is needed
on what kinds of professional development and support translate into more effective teaching practices.
Finally, we should expect research on the effectiveness of student-directed
incentives to continue. Undergirding many education reforms across the K-16
spectrum appears to be an assumption that students can be motivated to work
harder—thereby driving up graduation rates. Pay-for-performance efforts include
those that reward grades among elementary school students and continued enrollment among college students. Although these efforts cost money, they might be
cost-effective if they generate substantial impacts without requiring the overhaul
of major policies or institutional practices.
All efforts to enhance community college student success should be rigorously
evaluated with frameworks that are capable of both estimating and explaining
impacts. We need to know what works and why. Such an agenda necessitates
improvements in data quality, because relatively few national longitudinal surveys
include sizeable samples of 2-year college students, and only a handful of state
data systems allow researchers to track students into higher education and among
2- and 4-year colleges. Having an incomplete picture of student pathways through
college may lead analysts to draw unsupported conclusions. Selection bias is a
statistical problem plaguing much of higher education research, because college
outcomes can be observed only for those who participate, and participants differ
in important and often unobservable ways from nonparticipants. This area of
research is dominated both by descriptive rather than explanatory analyses and by
multivariate analyses that attempt to make causal arguments without first taking
the necessary steps to minimize selection bias. These issues can and should be
remedied by current and future generations of researchers.
The best research on community colleges moving forward will be interdisciplinary and use both quantitative and qualitative methods. Far too often researchers, just like policy makers and practitioners, act in silos, failing to consider each
others’ theories or evidence. As a result, too much time can be devoted to one
policy strategy or another, and unintended consequences may occur. The increased
attention to the public 2-year sector in policy circles should be matched by
increased attention by researchers.
Despite the inherently varied and multifaceted nature of the American community college mission, it is clear that in this economic environment, improving
the academic achievement of students attending community college must remain
a top priority. Some students enroll at 2-year colleges because they want to, others
458
Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net by guest on December 8, 2011
Improving Community College Student Success
because they feel they have few other options. That so many fail to make progress,
getting stuck often very early in their trajectories, is evidence of both the numerous
barriers that these students face and a failure by colleges and states to identify and
implement effective reforms. We still know far too little about what works, but
what evidence we do have indicates a need for a multifaceted approach that is flexible enough to accommodate the variety of student needs and ambitious enough to
create meaningful change. It is possible for policy makers to serve all kinds of
students while achieving greater levels of success. Doing so will require the coordination of proven educational practices that work together, and not at cross-purposes, toward the common goal of increasing academic momentum. Colleges and
universities should be active participants in (rather than the objects of) such efforts
and should be allowed autonomy to achieve these ends while being held accountable for making sure goals are met.
Note
An earlier version of this manuscript was written for the Community College
Research Center as part of the Achieving the Dream: Community Colleges Count
initiative. Funding was provided by Lumina Foundation for Education. Small sections also appeared in a paper issued by the Brookings Institution in 2009. The
author would like to thank Thomas Bailey, Douglas N. Harris, Katherine Hughes,
Davis Jenkins, Gregory Kienzl, Timothy Leinbach, Christopher Mazzeo, Michael
Olneck, and Jospia Roksa for their comments and suggestions on earlier drafts of
this paper. University of Wisconsin–Madison graduate students Brian An, Seong
Won Han, Eleonora Hicks, Peter Kinsley, Cynthia Taines, and Quentin WheelerBell provided excellent research assistance.
References
Adelman, C. (1999). Answers in the tool box: academic intensity, attendance patterns,
and bachelor’s degree attainment. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Adelman, C. (2004). The story-lines of multi-institutional attendance. Paper presented
at the Annual Forum of the Association for Institutional Research, Boston, MA.
Adelman, C. (2005). Moving into town—and moving on: The community college in the
lives of traditional-age students. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Adelman, C. (2006). The toolbox revisited: Paths to degree completion from high
school through college. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Alamprese, J. A. (2005). Helping adult learners make the transition to postsecondary
education. Adult education background papers. Washington, DC: U.S. Department
of Education.
Alba, R. D., & Lavin, D. (1981). Community Colleges and Tracking in Higher
Education. Sociology of Education. 54, 223–237.
Aldeman, C., & Carey, K. (2009). Ready to assemble: Grading state higher education
accountability systems. Washington DC: Education Sector.
Alexander, K. L., Bozick, R., & Entwisle, D. (2008). Warming up, cooling out, or holding steady? Persistence and change in educational expectations after high school.
Sociology of Education, 8, 371–396.
Alfonso, M. (2004). The role of educational expectations and college choice in transfer
and baccalaureate attainment of community college students. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Teachers College, Columbia University, NY.
459
Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net by guest on December 8, 2011
Goldrick-Rab
Alfonso, M. (2006). The impact of community college attendance on baccalaureate
attainment. Research in Higher Education, 47, 873–903.
American Association of Community Colleges. (2009). Principles and plans: A voluntary framework of accountability for community colleges. Washington DC: AACC.
An, B. P. (2009). The impact of dual enrollment on college performance and attainment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin–Madison.
Anderson, G. M., Alfonso, M., & Sun, J. C. (2006). Rethinking cooling out at public
community colleges: An examination of fiscal and demographic trends in higher
education and the rise of statewide articulation agreements. Teachers College
Record, 108, 422–451.
Anderson, G. M., Sun, J. C., & Alfonso, M. (2006). Effectiveness of statewide articulation agreements on the probability of transfer: A preliminary policy analysis. Review
of Higher Education, 29, 261–291.
Anderson, K. L. (1981). Post-high school experiences and college attrition. Sociology
of Education, 54, 1–15.
Attewell, P., & Lavin, D. (2007). Passing the torch. New York, NY: Russell Sage.
Attewell, P., Lavin, D., Domina, T., & Levey, T. (2006). New evidence on college
remediation. Journal of Higher Education, 77, 886–924.
Avery, C., & Kane, T. (2004). Student perceptions of college opportunities: The Boston
COACH Program. In C. M. Hoxby (Ed.), College choices: The economics of where to go,
when to go, and how to pay for it (pp. 355–394). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Badway, N., & Grubb, W. N. (1997). A sourcebook for reshaping the community
college: Curriculum integration and the multiple domains of career preparation
(Vols. I and II). MDS-782. Berkeley, CA: National Center for Research in Vocational
Education.
Bahr, P. R. (2008). Cooling out in the community college: What is the effect of academic
advising on students’ chances of success? Research in Higher Education, 49, 2–22.
Bailey, D. S. (2003). Swirling changes to the traditional student path. American
Psychological Association Monitor on Psychology, 34, 36.
Bailey, T. (2009). Rethinking developmental education in community college. New York,
NY: Columbia University, Teachers College, Community College Research Center.
Bailey, T. R., & Alfonso, M. (2005). Paths to persistence: An analysis of research on
program effectiveness at community colleges. New Agenda Series. Indianapolis, IN:
Lumina Foundation.
Bailey, T. R., Calcagno, J. C., Jenkins, D., Leinbach, T., & Kienzl, G. (2005). Is student
right-to-know all you should know? An analysis of community college dropout rates.
New York, NY: Columbia University, Teachers College, Community College
Research Center.
Bailey, T. R., Jacobs, J. (2009, October 26). Can community colleges rise to the occasion? The American Prospect, 20(8).
Bailey, T. R., Jenkins, D., & Leinbach, T. (2005). What we know about community college low-income and minority student outcomes: Descriptive statistics from national
surveys. New York, NY: Columbia University, Teachers College, Community
College Research Center.
Bailey, T. R., Leinbach, T., & Jenkins, D. (2006). Is student success labeled institutional failure? Student goals and graduation rates in the accountability debate at
community colleges. New York, NY: Columbia University, Teachers College,
Community College Research Center.
Baum, S., McPherson, M., & Steele, P. (Eds). (2008). The effectiveness of student aid
policies: What the research tells us. New York, NY: The College Board.
460
Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net by guest on December 8, 2011
Improving Community College Student Success
Beder, H. (1999). The outcomes and impacts of adult literacy in the United States.
Report No. 6. Cambridge, MA: National Center for the Study of Adult Learning and
Literacy.
Bensimon, E. M. (2004). The diversity scorecard: A learning approach to institutional
change. Change, January/February, 45–52.
Bettinger, E. (2004). How financial aid affects persistence. In C. Hoxby (Ed.), College
choices: The economics of where to go, when to go, and how to pay for it (pp. 207–
333). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Bettinger, E. P., & Long, B. T. (2005). Remediation at the community college: Student
participation and outcomes. New Directions for Community Colleges, 129 (Spring),
17–26.
Bettinger, E. P., & Long, B. T. (2006) The increasing use of adjunct instructors at public institutions: Are we hurting students? In R. Ehrenberg (Ed.), What’s happening
to public higher education. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press for the American
Council on Education.
Bettinger, E. P., Long, B. T., Oreopoulos, P., & Sanbonmatsu, L. (2009). The role of
simplification and information in college decisions: Results from the H&R block
FAFSA experiment. NBER Working Papers 15361, National Bureau of Economic
Research, Inc.
Brint, S., & Karabel, J. (1989). The diverted dream: Community colleges and the
promise of educational opportunity in America. New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Bound, J., Lovenheim, M., & Turner, S. E. (2009). Why have college completion rates
declined? NBER (National Bureau of Economic Research) working paper 15566.
Bound, J., & Turner, S. E. (2007). Cohort crowding: How resources affect college
attainment. Journal of Public Economics, 91, 877–899.
Bozick, R., & DeLuca, S. (2005). Better late than never? Delayed enrollment in the
high school to college transition. Social Forces, 84, 527–550.
Bradburn, E., Hurst, D., & Peng, S. (2003). Community college transfer rates to 4-year
institutions using alternative definitions of transfer. Washington DC: National
Center for Education Statistics.
Breneman, D. W., & Nelson, S. (1981). Financing community colleges: An economic
perspective. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
Brock, T., Jenkins, D., Ellwein, T., Miller, J., Gooden, S., Martin, K., MacGregor, C.,
& Pih, M. (2007). Building a culture of evidence for community college student success: Early progress in the Achieving the Dream initiative. New York, NY: MDRC.
Burke, J. (2004). Achieving accountability in higher education: Balancing public, academic, and market demands. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Cabrera, A. F., Burkum, K. R., & La Nasa, S. M. (2005). Pathways to a four-year
degree: Determinants of transfer and degree completion. In A. Seidman (Ed.),
College student retention: A formula for success (pp. 155–214). Westport, CT: ACE/
Praeger Series on Higher Education.
Calcagno, J., Bailey, T., Jenkins, D., Kienzl, G., & Leinbach, D. T. (2006). Is studentright-to-know all you should know? An analysis of community college graduation
rates. Research in Higher Education, 47(5), 491–519.
Calcagno, J., Bailey, T., Jenkins, D., Kienzl, G., & Leinbach, D. (2008). Community
college student success: What institutional characteristics make a difference?
Economics of Education Review, 27(6), 632–645.
Calcagno, J. C., Crosta, P., Bailey, T., & Jenkins, D. (2006). Stepping stones to a
degree: The impact of enrollment pathways and milestones on community college
461
Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net by guest on December 8, 2011
Goldrick-Rab
students. New York, NY: Columbia University, Teachers College, Community
College Research Center.
Calcagno, J. C., & Long, B. (2008). The impact of postsecondary remediation using a
regression discontinuity approach: Addressing endogenous sorting and noncompliance. Working paper. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
Chancellor’s Office of the California Community Colleges. (2009). Effective practices
for promoting the transition of high school students to college: A review of literature
with implications for California community college practitioners. Sacramento, CA:
Chancellor’s Office of the California Community Colleges.
Clark, B. (1960). The “cooling-out” function in higher education. American Journal of
Sociology, 65, 569–576.
Comings, J. P., & Soricone, L. (2006). An evidence-based adult education program
model appropriate for research. Cambridge, MA: National Center for the Study of
Adult Learning and Literacy.
D’Amico, D. (1997). Adult education and welfare to work initiatives: A review of
research, practice and policy. Washington, DC: National Institute for Literacy.
Data Quality Campaign. (2008). Measuring what matters: Creating longitudinal data
systems to improve student achievement. Washington, DC: DQC.
DeGenaro, W. (2006). Community colleges, the media, and the rhetoric of inevitability.
Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 30, 529–545.
Deil-Amen, R. (2006). To teach or not to teach “social” skills: Comparing community
colleges and private occupational colleges. Teachers College Record, 108, 397–421.
Deil-Amen, R., & Rosenbaum, J. (2002). The unintended consequences of stigma-free
remediation. Sociology of Education, 75, 249–268.
Dembicki, M. (2008, January 17). Governors forecast bright spots, stormy weather.
Community College Times. Available online at http://www.communitycollegetimes.
com/article.cfm?TopicId=39&ArticleId=711.
DesJardins, S. L., Ahlburg, D. A., & McCall, B. P. (2002). Simulating the longitudinal
effects of changes in financial aid on student departure from college. Journal of
Human Resources, 37, 653–679.
DesJardins, S. L., Ahlburg, D. A., & McCall, B. P. (2006). An integrated model of application,
admission, enrollment, and financial aid. Journal of Higher Education. 77, 381–429.
Devall, W. B. (1968). Community colleges: A dissenting view. Educational Record, 49,
168–172.
Dougherty, K. (1987). The effects of community colleges: Aid or hindrance to socioeconomic attainment? Sociology of Education, 60(2), 86–103.
Dougherty, K. J. (1994). The contradictory college: The conflicting origins, impacts,
and futures of the community college. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Dougherty, K., Hare, R., & Natow, R. (2009). Performance accountability systems for
community colleges: Lessons for the voluntary framework of accountability for community colleges. New York, NY: Community College Research Center.
Dowd, A. C. (2005). Data don’t drive: Building a practitioner-driven culture of inquiry
to assess community college performance. Indianapolis, IN: Lumina Foundation.
Dowd, A. C., & Cheslock, J. (2006). Equity and efficiency of community college appropriations: The role of local financing. Review of Higher Education, 29, 167–194.
Dowd, A. C., & Coury, T. (2006). The effects of loans on the persistence and attainment
of community college students. Research in Higher Education, 47, 33–62.
Dowd, A., & Ventimiglia, L. (2008). A cost estimate of standards-based remediation in
a community college developmental education program. Working paper. University
of Southern California.
462
Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net by guest on December 8, 2011
Improving Community College Student Success
Doyle, W. R. (2008). The effect of community college enrollment on bachelor’s degree
completion. Economics of Education Review, 28, 199–206.
Duke, A., & Strawn, J. (2008). Helping low-skilled adults enter and succeed in college
and careers: An overview of state policy opportunities and challenges. Boston, MA:
Breaking Through.
Dynarski, S., & Scott-Clayton, J. (2008). Complexity and targeting in federal student
aid: A quantitative analysis. NBER (National Bureau of Economic Research) working paper 13801.
El-Khawas, E., & Knopp, L. (1996). Campus trends. Washington, DC: American
Council on Education.
Floyd, D., & Walker, K. (2009). The community college baccalaureate: Putting
the pieces together. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 33,
90–124.
Gamoran, A., Porter, A. C., Smithson, J., & White, P. A. (1997). Upgrading high school
mathematics instruction: Improving learning opportunities for low-achieving, lowincome youth. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19, 325–338.
Geckeler, C., Beach, C., Pih, M., & Yan, L. (2008). Helping community college students
cope with financial emergencies. New York, NY: MDRC.
Goldrick-Rab, S., & Han, S. (2010). The class gap in the “gap year”: Academic coursetaking, family formation, and socioeconomic differences in delaying the transition
to college. Review of Higher Education.
Goldrick-Rab, S., Harris, D., & Trostel, P. (2009). Why financial aid matters (or does
not) for college success: Toward a new interdisciplinary perspective. Higher
Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, 24, 1–46.
Goldrick-Rab, S., Harris, D., Mazzeo, C., & Kienzl, G. (2009). Transforming America’s
community colleges: A proposal to expand opportunity and promote economic prosperity. Blueprint for American prosperity. Washington, DC: The Brookings
Institution.
Goldrick-Rab, S., & Pfeffer, F. (2009). Beyond access: Explaining Socioeconomic differences in college transfer. Sociology of Education, 82(2), 101–125.
Goldrick-Rab, S., & Roksa, J. (2008). A federal agenda for promoting student success
and degree completion. Washington, DC: Center for American Progress.
Grodsky, E. S., & Jones, M. T. (2007). Real and imagined barriers to college entry:
Perceptions of cost. Social Science Research, 36, 745–766.
Gross, B., & Goldhaber, D. (2009). Community college transfer and articulation policies: Looking beneath the surface. http://www.crpe.org/cs/crpe/view/csr_pubs/264
Grubb, N. W. (1999). Honored but invisible: An inside look at teaching in community
colleges. New York, NY: Routledge.
Grubb, N. W. (2006). “Like, what do I do now?” The dilemmas of guidance counseling.
In T. Bailey & V. Smith Morest (Eds.), Defending the community college equity
agenda (pp. 195–222). Johns Hopkins University Press: Baltimore, MD.
Grubb, W. N., & Kalman, J. (1994). Relearning to earn: The role of remediation in
vocational education and job training. American Journal of Education, 103, 54–93.
Habley, W. R., & McClanahan, R. (2004). What works in student retention? Two-year
public colleges. Iowa City, IA: ACT.
Hanson, C. (2008). Putting community back in the community college: The case for a
localized and problem-based curriculum. Community College Journal of Research
and Practice, 32, 999–1007.
Hardy, D. E., Katsinas, S., & Bush, V. B. (2007). Tidal wave II, community colleges,
and student financial aid. Enrollment Management Journal, 1, 23–48.
463
Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net by guest on December 8, 2011
Goldrick-Rab
Hearn, J. (2006). Student success: What research suggests for policy and practice.
Washington DC: National Postsecondary Education Cooperative.
Hebel, S. (2009). Lumina makes grants to 7 states to raise productivity in higher education. Chronicle of Higher Education. Available online at http://chronicle.com/article/Lumina-Makes-Grants-to-7/49249/.
Hilmer, M. J. (1997). Does community college attendance provide a strategic path to a
higher quality education? Economics of Education Review, 16, 59–68.
Horn, L., & Nevill, S. (2006). Profile of undergraduates in U.S. postsecondary education institutions: 2003-04 with a special analysis of community college students.
NCES 2006-184. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center
for Education Statistics.
Hossler, D., & Vesper, N. (1993). An exploratory study of the factors associated with parental saving for postsecondary education. Journal of Higher Education, 64, 140–165.
Hossler, D., Ziskin, M., Gross, J. P. K., Kim, S., & Cekic, O. (2009). Student aid and
its role in encouraging persistence. In Smart J. (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook
of theory and research (Vol. 24, pp. 389–426). New York: Springer.
Howell, J., Kurlaender, M., & Grodsky, E. (2009). Postsecondary preparation and
remediation: Examining the effect of the Early Assessment Program at California
State University. Working paper. Sacramento: California State University.
Jacobs, J. A., & King, R. B. (2002). Age and college completion: A life history analysis
of women aged 15-44. Sociology of Education, 75, 211–230.
Jacobs, J., & Tolbert-Bynum, P. (2008). Shifting gears: Community colleges and adult
basic education. New York, NY: Community College Research Center.
Jenkins, D. (2006). Career pathways: Aligning public resources to support individual
and regional economic advancement in the knowledge economy. New York, NY:
Workforce Strategy Center.
Jenkins, D. (2007). Institutional effectiveness and student success: A study of high- and
low-impact community colleges. Journal of Community College Research and
Practice, 31, 945–962.
Jenkins, D., Jaggars, S., & Roksa, J. (2009). Promoting gatekeeper course success
among community college students needing remediation: Findings and recommendations from a Virginia study. New York, NY: CCRC.
Jenkins, D., & Kerrigan, M. R. (2009). Faculty and administrator data use at achieving
the dream colleges: A summary of survey findings. New York, NY: Community
College Research Center.
Jenkins, D., Zeidenberg, M., & Kienzl, G. (2009). Building bridges to postsecondary
tra...
Purchase answer to see full
attachment