Q&A: Josh Wyner on Community Colleges Part II

Yesterday, we published the first part of our interview with Josh Wyner, the head of the Aspen Prize for Community College Excellence, about his great new book “What Excellent Community Colleges Do” and the importance of campus cultures, leadership, and state policy for change. The second half of the interview is below.

Ed Central: Our higher education system asks community colleges to play radically different roles. And as Tony Carnevale from the Georgetown Center on Education and the Workforce notes in the book’s introduction “community colleges are marvelous at pursuing many different missions, but rarely excel in any of them.” Should we reconsider any of these missions? Or at least prioritize more clearly?

Josh Wyner: Comprehensive community colleges do lots of things, including workforce training, general education to begin a bachelor’s degree, developmental education, ESL and GED training, and continuing adult education. It is hard for any community college to do every one of those things exceptionally well.

For many of these functions, though, there’s no reasonable, scalable alternative provider. One of the most compelling things about community colleges is their deep commitment to broad access. If community colleges shed some functions, it would be important that other providers not just deliver these services, but do so in a way that’s accessible for populations that have no other options.

But while shedding many functions may not be advisable, focusing on a few certainly is. Community colleges that have been most effective at achieving high and improving levels of student success have done so by developing a particular focus in one or two areas. The most notable strength of Walla Walla Community College in Washington is a set of remarkable workforce development programs that have helped build a new regional economy, leading to excellent labor outcomes for students. At Santa Barbara City College in California, the primary focus on equitable access to a four-year degree has resulted in exceptional success in bachelor’s degree attainment. Rather than curtailing programs, more community colleges should perhaps develop a more refined area of focus based on the needs of and opportunities available to students.

Students tell community college leaders that they want more direction.

EC: When you think about refining programs, one of the things that really struck me about successful solutions some colleges have employed is streamlining the choices a student has to make. At first, this seems like it goes against what’s seen as one of the biggest values of the American higher education system. But you lay out pretty convincingly that extending choices all the way down to each and every course may be too much and that models where students pick a course of study and then have a structured course sequence are more effective. Are there certain types of programs that you think lend themselves better to this more structured setup? Or is there a broader way we should be thinking about the role of choice here without drumming up fears of paternalism?

JW: In the Aspen Prize process, we have observed higher graduation rates in colleges that are more focused on career and technical education, which are typically highly structured, than those more centered on general education programs. And Davis Jenkins’ research shows that students studying liberal arts have a better chance of completing their degrees once they have completed course sequences that indicate having chosen a program of study. Together, these findings suggest that helping students decide on a pathway early and then laying out for them exactly what they need to accomplish to graduate may dramatically improve success rates. Is doing so paternalistic? Not according to students. When asked, students tell community college leaders that they want more direction. They are tired of taking credits that don’t help them in their pursuit of a degree and frustrated over receiving inaccurate advice from advisers. Promoting earlier choice and better defining pathways isn’t paternalistic—it’s a response to students’ demands and a way to better support their choices. It’s not about telling students what to major in or what careers to pursue, it’s about helping them decide early and then know clarifying for them exactly how they can achieve what they want, so they don’t waste time and money.

EC: One of the things that I really liked about the book was that it had a separate section that talked about learning–a crucial part of higher education policy that rarely gets substantive treatment. Improving learning clearly require faculty support and engagement. At the same time, community colleges generally do not have the same human capital structures and career pathways that are present in four year colleges. Do those different dynamics have an effect on making changes in teaching and learning practices?

JW: Across higher education, there is a huge need to improve professional development in instruction. Community colleges are a great place to focus such efforts because professors aren’t as focused on research as are professors in many four-year colleges and universities. At community colleges, systems of tenure and other rewards can be much more easily tied to the goal of great instruction. The challenge is that many community colleges rely significantly on adjunct faculty, who typically are not included in existing structures of tenure and promotion. Thus, while there are strong models of professional faculty development in a few exceptional community colleges, even they haven’t yet figured out how to extend those rewards and supports to adjuncts.

Valencia [Community College, which Wyner discussed in part one] has begun to address this issue by making several professional development offerings available to adjuncts, and Patrick Henry College in Virginia has offered a permanent raise per credit hour for all adjuncts who voluntarily take part in their well-regarded faculty development program. But there is no question that much more needs to be done to invent new ways of engaging faculty who may only be teaching a class or two at a time.