Graduation rate calculations apply to a small fraction of our entire student population (about ...]]> Anyone who fixates on graduation rates has little understanding not only of the rich mission and value of our community colleges, but also how deeply flawed and inadequate those rates are as a principal assessment tool for the performance of community colleges.

Graduation rate calculations apply to a small fraction of our entire student population (about 15%). That is because this national measure focuses only on new students and only on those new students who register for a full-time course load. Thus, the graduation rate for Bristol Community College is 19%, the average of the 15 Massachusetts community colleges is 16%, and the national average is 22%. The business leaders who make up our boards of trustees would not tolerate such a dismal performance, if it actually measured community college performance accurately.

What is wrong with the use of graduation rates as the performance indicator for community colleges? We know that about 85% of all community college students work either full- or part-time; consequently, most do not register for a full load of courses. So the majority of our students do not fall into the graduation rate database. Consider, too, that even those entering students who begin full-time study cannot always maintain that ambitious course load. If students remain enrolled, but opt for a reduced course load, they are considered unsuccessful based on the criteria for measuring graduation rates. Similarly, if students excel in their first year and transfer immediately to a four-year institution, they also are marked against the community college that succeeded in preparing them for transfer.

It's more accurate to consider “Student Persistence” and “Student Success” in gauging the effectiveness of community colleges. For example, we have students who, because of their preparatory learning experience, transfer successfully before earning their associate degrees at Bristol. Shouldn’t we be praised for spurring student success instead of being castigated that they did not graduate on an arbitrary time frame? In addition, some of our students for personal reasons (such as employment schedules, child/spouse/parent care, health, finances, etc.), reduce their course load below full-time status.  These students continue to persist in their academic pursuits for their degrees. Whether they earn more than 30 credits (the halfway mark to an associate degree) or less, they continue on track despite formidable personal circumstances. Aren’t they to be commended?  Shouldn’t the college that makes this possible be seen as a success?

As a response to the terrible distortions about community colleges based solely on graduation rates, a national commission under U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan has combined various categories of students to provide a more accurate measure of community college performance. The new national criteria for Student Success and Student Persistence now take into account across a six-year period: 1) student transfers; 2) students who have earned at least 30 credits and either remain enrolled or stop out temporarily; 3) students who have completed less than 30 credits but have not interrupted their studies; and, yes, 4) the traditional graduation rate (which we would never want to eradicate). Under this new cluster of criteria, the Student Success Rate for BCC (and all community colleges) jumps to nearly 80%!

Why do some influential voices continue to carp about community college graduation rates? Their fixation leads me to wonder about their motivation. Instead of celebrating the ability of students to use community college flexibility to fit higher education into their lives, these uninformed critics use our flexibility against us. If you encounter someone describing graduation rates as the only measure—and criticism—of community college performance, take the time to explain the other criteria that provide more accurate information about how well community colleges are really performing.

John J. Sbrega is president of Bristol Community College.

Related Posts:

Alignment Job: Community Colleges and Workforce Development

The Community's Colleges (pdf)

Transfer and Other Topics for Community Colleges (pdf)

Are Colleges Ready for Students? (pdf)

Sbrega on Community Colleges and Grad Rates, 2004 (pdf)

History of a Community College (pdf)

From President Obama to private foundations ...]]> The New England Board of Higher Education released a policy brief that encourages states to tie a portion of higher education appropriations to institutional outcomes. Currently, New England states tend to apportion institutional funding based on enrollment levels—a practice that rewards quantity, but not necessarily student success and degree attainment.

From President Obama to private foundations like Lumina and Gates, higher education stakeholders increasingly stress the significance of college persistence and degree completion to the national education agenda. If the U.S. is to thrive in a knowledge-based economy and remain globally competitive, American institutions must retain and graduate more students.

NEBHE—in its report entitled “Catalyst to Completion: Performance-Based Funding in Higher Education”—suggests that performance-based funding strategies can encourage student success. States should earmark at least 5% of higher education appropriations to reward institutional improvements in areas like: remediation, retention, degrees conferred, research and service dollars, and six-year graduation rate.

To make its case, the report examines performance-based funding strategies at work in three states: Ohio, Indiana and Tennessee. Each state, in consultation with institutional leaders and in light of state-specific goals, overhauled its enrollment-based funding model in favor of a formula inclusive of outcomes.

While not a silver bullet, performance-based funding stands to improve college persistence and completion in New England, especially among low-income students and other “at risk” populations. States should consider such funding strategies alongside college access initiatives, increased aid and financial literacy programs, partnerships between education and industry, and other student success efforts.

NEBHE unveiled this research in a webinar held by its Policy and Research Department late last week.

In a recent article in Inside Higher Education, transfer expert Marc Cutright of the University of North Texas writes about the growing importance that four-year colleges and universities should place on students transferring from community college. Public colleges, led by community colleges, grant more than a half million associate degrees annually and the number grew ...]]>

In a recent article in Inside Higher Education, transfer expert Marc Cutright of the University of North Texas writes about the growing importance that four-year colleges and universities should place on students transferring from community college. Public colleges, led by community colleges, grant more than a half million associate degrees annually and the number grew by 27% over a decade. But what about that other sector seeing large enrollment growth: for-profit colleges?

In a year of generally bad press for for-profit colleges—ranging from high student loan default rates and declining confidence on Wall Street—the sector's enrollment is rising, particularly at the two-year level. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, in 2009 6% of two-year enrollments were in for-profits, up from 5% the year before.

When you consider that for-profit two-year programs have a 60% graduation rate, compared with the 22% graduation rate for public community colleges, for-profits would only need a 27% share of students to produce as many associate degrees as community colleges. If for-profits increase their market share by 1% each year, this would happen in as few as 20 years.

Last year's was the largest single-year increase that the for-profits have seen in recent years, so that kind of continued growth is unlikely. However it does highlight the fact that this student population is growing and will needs to be considered as well.

The overwhelming majority of U.S. school districts and states fail to provide resources black males need in order to close the graduation gap.

According to the Schott Foundation, during the 2007-08 academic year, only 47% of black males graduated from high school "on time" with their entering cohort.

The foundation reports that more than half of the ...]]>

The overwhelming majority of U.S. school districts and states fail to provide resources black males need in order to close the graduation gap.

According to the Schott Foundation, during the 2007-08 academic year, only 47% of black males graduated from high school "on time" with their entering cohort.

The foundation reports that more than half of the 50 states have graduation rates below the national average, with New York's being the lowest—just 25%  for black males.

The report provides state-by state data and concludes that black male students are being set up to fail in school districts and states that don't ensure access to high-quality early education, highly effective teachers, college-preparatory curricula and equitable instructional resources, as well as safe and educationally sound living and learning communities.

The report highlights the success of the Abbott plan in New Jersey, the only state with a significant black population to yield a high school graduation rate greater than 65% for black males.