From the issue dated December 5, 2003
|
|
Redefining 'Open Access'By GEORGE B. VAUGHAN
In fact, one could view the history of community colleges in the United States as a three-act play in which open access is a key element of the plot. The curtain for Act 1 rose during the 1960s and early 1970s, when new community colleges opened at the rate of one a week. Act 2 occurred from the mid-1970s until the early 1990s, by which time community colleges were enrolling more than five million students. In that era, community colleges led the way in opening higher education to people who had previously been ignored, people often from low-income backgrounds or minority groups. As a result, about 60 percent of public-community-college students today are first generation, according to data from the National Center for Education Statistics. Community colleges had apparently proved that open access worked. Throughout the 1990s, most of them continued to pack students in, although those students usually paid more tuition to attend than their predecessors. Today, however, one of the most important questions community-college leaders face is whether open access can continue or whether Act 3 will see the curtain fall on that noble undertaking. Community colleges have indeed had an amazing run, receiving generous appropriations from state and local legislators for much of the past 40 years. And even when tax dollars have fallen short, presidents and governing boards have found ways to keep the door open: Adjuncts have replaced full-time faculty members, fewer and larger classes have been offered, and schedules have become less flexible. Defying common sense, community-college leaders have even enrolled thousands and thousands of students beyond the number for which their colleges have received tax revenues. Last year, for example, community colleges in Washington State, which are heavily dependent on tax dollars, enrolled 9,000 students for whom they received no state money. But now the difficult economy and continuing cuts in state appropriations are forcing more community-college leaders to face facts: As it has been practiced in the past, open access is a failure. Community colleges cannot serve all of the students who want to attend, nor can they continue to enroll large numbers of students for whom they receive no state financing -- a practice that ultimately leads to fiscal irresponsibility. A recent Chronicle article (June 20) points out that Valencia Community College, in Florida, had to cap enrollments last year because the state did not provide money for one out of every four students. After midyear budget cuts, California community colleges slashed nearly 5,800 course-section offerings last spring, excluding an estimated 90,000 students. Such cutbacks often hurt the neediest students most. When classes are full, presidents usually cap enrollments as a first response, and the students who manage to gain admittance are often simply those best able to understand and negotiate the system. Such students are also, more often than not, affluent. Meanwhile, growing numbers of minority, lower-income, and immigrant students are finding themselves shut out. For example, this year California community colleges may turn away 20,000 black and Hispanic students. Can open access be saved? The answer is yes -- but only if community-college leaders abandon the idea that their mission is to serve practically everyone who shows up. Simply talking about limiting enrollments ignites the fires in the bellies of old-time community-college presidents who insist that the answer is to demand more money from local and state legislators. But still believing that the community college can be all things to all people simply makes no sense in today's economic environment -- if, indeed, it ever did -- and will ultimately lead to failure. To be true to their mission, community colleges must serve all segments, but not all members, of society. There is a big difference in the two commitments. For example, community colleges must provide access to minority students, poor white people, middle-class homemakers wanting to re-enter the work force, new immigrants who must take ESL courses to function in the United States, unemployed workers, transfer students, and many other constituencies. But community colleges cannot admit everyone from each of those groups who wants to enroll and serve them all well. Paradoxically, to preserve open access, enrollments must be limited. Presidents, as the most important interpreters of the community-college mission, must understand and communicate that open access can exist and thrive in today's environment -- but not in the same way that it has in the past. Each president must work closely with his or her trustees, faculty and staff members, legislators, business leaders, and other community representatives to define the meaning of access as it relates to the institution's specific mission and service area. Priorities must be set: Maintaining open access requires that a college determine the programs and courses that the key constituencies it serves need most and then thoughtfully allocate available resources to meet those needs. At the same time, a comprehensive curriculum must remain intact, for a college that promises access with few or no choices in programs and courses is misleading students and the public. The president must then take the lead in putting words into action -- connecting the budget to the mission in ways that, in many cases, have not been done before. Whatever the institution's financial situation, it must spend limited resources so that it can best serve a wide variety of students. The budget should not be the sole determinant of what programs are offered, how many classes are provided, which students are admitted. That will require difficult decisions. For example, if a community college defines access as admitting students who require courses in ESL, a percentage of the budget must be dedicated up front to serving those students. Once the proportion of the budget, say 20 percent, that has been allocated for those purposes has been reached, then the college should not admit any more students who need ESL courses. Or suppose the college has guaranteed a certain number of slots to academically unprepared applicants, many of whom are minority students and members of low-income groups. As with ESL courses, community colleges must be willing and ready to shut down admissions to a program or to limit courses once the resources for the program or courses are committed. Of course, when the demand exceeds the available slots, a major question will be how college leaders decide who specifically will be admitted. One method, and the one that probably will prevail, is to admit students on a first-come-first-served basis. That approach, however, again leads to situations where those most likely to be admitted are just the best at navigating the process. Therefore, college leaders must take steps to assist those who normally would not make the 20-percent cut. For example, a college could reserve a number of slots -- say, 5 percent of the 20 percent -- for people who have expressed interest in attending but have not completed the admissions process for any number of reasons, including ignorance about how to deal with red tape. To help students who do not understand the process or who face other stumbling blocks, community colleges should hold special workshops. Those conducting such workshops should lead participants through the entire admissions and financial-aid processes and provide personal and financial counseling as needed. Colleges should also commit financial aid beyond what the federal government provides to assist lower-income students. Many community colleges have already established selective-admissions programs in high-demand fields such as nursing. It is now time to apply the same practice across the board. Community colleges should develop the courses and programs that contribute the most to their missions and constituencies, admit students up to the point that their resources support such efforts, then close the door -- thereby ceasing the suicidal practice of enrolling students for whom the college receives no tax support. At the same time, they should preserve admission to the college for representatives from virtually all segments of society. Reserving slots, providing special counseling, and offering some financial aid will almost guarantee that some people who have lingered on the periphery of the admissions process will be enrolled, thus maintaining open access. So, is open access worth preserving? Yes. Is it possible to do so in light of today's limited resources and demands? Again, the answer is yes. Will it happen? That answer depends on how community-college leaders interpret their institutions' commitment to open access and how they fulfill that commitment. George B. Vaughan is a professor of higher education at North Carolina State University and the editor of The Community College Review. He is the former president of Piedmont Virginia Community College and Mountain Empire Community College. http://chronicle.com Section: The Chronicle Review Volume 50, Issue 15, Page B24 | |||||||||||||||
Copyright © 2003 by The Chronicle of Higher Education