To the Swiftest

JCC receives 'clean bill of health'

Editorial

Community College Week
December 9, 2002

To the Swiftest

National community college growth ranking
Fewer than 2,500 students- (9. Hazard Technical College, 39. Henderson Community College)
2,500 to 4,999 students- (4. Owensboro Community College, 21. Ashland Community College, 23. Somerset Community College, 29. Paducah Community College, 50. Hopkinsville Comunity College)

related charts (Adobe PDF)

For the second year running, we’ve set out to bring to you the answer to a seemingly straightforward question: Which are the fastest growing community colleges in the country? Once again we’ve encountered several obstacles and intricacies that make answering this question a challenge. But such challenges are what make this task interesting and the results intriguing.

As the basis of this analysis, we use the most reliable data source on postsecondary enrollments available: the U.S. Department of Education’s Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System, administered by the department’s National Center for Education Statistics. Thanks to improvements in technology, the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System, data are now submitted by colleges through a World Wide Web application and are made available to researchers on a much timelier basis than in previous years. The technology has sped up the processing so much that the National Center for Education Statistics releases the data within six months of its collection — a speedy turnaround, compared to previous time lags of one to three years.

But the compressed timeframe has also resulted in the release of data sets that are not entirely complete. Rather than wait until every institution responds to questions about data consistency (a process which can take well over a year), preliminary data are released with the understanding that a final, more complete set will be released later. To give you an idea as to the implications of these timing issues, I found 21 community and technical colleges that did not have completed data for Fall 2001.* On the other hand, I also found 20 community and technical colleges that reported enrollment for Fall 2001, but they don’t have complete data reported for Fall 2000.**

As you may remember from last year’s analysis, deciding which institutions to include is not a simple matter. Community colleges, junior colleges, tribal colleges, technical colleges and two-year campuses of four-year colleges are among the variety of campuses we considered. Following conventions used in our annual 100 Top Degree Producer analysis, we decided to examine all public, two-year institutions that are eligible for Federal Title IV funds, that grant degrees (mostly, but not entirely at the associate’s-degree level in this case), and that are located in one of the 50 United States or the District of Columbia. Then we started scanning for data from institutions that had reported their enrollment data in an aberrant fashion, relative to the vast majority of other colleges.

First, we excluded the eight community college districts that had reported their enrollment district-wide, not as individual campuses.*** In a similar vein, we removed 15 other ‘entities’ that were indicated as including enrollments for multiple institutions.**** Had we included such institutions in our comparisons, it would have been tantamount to comparing the weight of an apple with that of an apple tree.

Our final exclusion was of a single institution, Vincennes University in Indiana, which along with Ivy Tech State College, has become part of the statewide Community College of Indiana. Although the Ivy Tech campuses each report separately, Vincennes University enrollments now include students at the various combined campuses throughout the state, thus prompting its exclusion as another “multi-institution” entity.

This selection process left us with 939 institutions in our final analysis.

Even after setting aside these exceptions and complications, counting enrollment is not as simple as counting heads. According to the definitions in the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System reporting documentation, institutions’ reports should include all full- and part-time enrollees in courses that lead to a formal award, certificate or degree — that is, courses that are eligible for degree attainment, regardless of whether an enrollee in such a course is declared as degree-seeking. We found out last year that the nation’s largest community college system — California’s — changed its reporting parameters in 1999, crafting a new definition of which students should be included. Previously, the California system had not included students enrolled in courses that did not award credit, per se, but did count toward a formal award. This change in interpretation resulted in an apparent sudden increase in many California Community College enrollments. Unfortunately, we have no way of knowing the extent to which similar structural, bureaucratic or other definitional changes that do not reflect the actual growth of actual enrollments pervade national reporting practices. For the most part, we have to take the numbers for what they are: reports of total full- and part-time headcount enrollments at the two-year colleges included in this analysis.

Since the change in reporting practice in the California institutions skewed comparisons from before and after 1999, we decided to limit our change analysis to just the most recent one-year period for which data are available — the period from fall 2000 to fall 2001. In keeping with last year’s analysis, we have ranked colleges by their respective enrollment-growth percentages, rather than by their absolute enrollment increases. However, since percentage increases favor small institutions, we have once again separately analyzed percentage enrollment growth within four different categories of institutional size based on fall 2001 enrollment: institutions with enrollments below 2,500, those with enrollments between 2,500 and 4,999, institutions with enrollments between 5,000 and 9,999 and institutions with 10,000 or more students.

The tables list the public, two-year institutions that have experienced the largest percentage change in total student enrollment between fall 2000 and fall 2001. These four groups of institutions rose to the top among the 940 public, two-year colleges that entered into the analysis. It is important to note, however, that the size groups contain differing numbers of institutions. The smallest institutions (<2500 students) includes the largest number of institutions — 317, about 34 percent of all those included in the analysis. The number of institutions in each subsequent category decreases as the enrollments increase. A total of 252 institutions (27 percent) occupy the 2,500-4,999 category and 207 (22 percent) are in the 5,000-9,999 enrollment range. Institutions with the largest enrollment (10,000+) are fewest in number — only 163, about 17 percent of all institutions. As a result, the latter lists portray a larger percentage of the institutions in that category, and correspondingly show more modest percentage increases, especially toward the bottom of the list. We limit the number of institutions to 50 in each table because the enrollment growth rates at the slower-growing community colleges drop rather sharply afterward into single-digit increases.

There is an interesting geographic pattern that occurs across the different groups of institutions. In the largest-enrollment group, California institutions dominate, accounting for 14 of the 20 fastest-growing schools. In the next size group (5,000-9,999), only three California institutions are present, but when the state’s representatives are added to those of two other fast-growing states in the Southwest — Texas and Arizona — 12 of the fastest-growing 20 colleges are accounted for. The next list of colleges grouped by enrollment size (2,500-4,999 students), includes six institutions from Georgia and three from other Southeastern states in the top 20. Finally, among the top 20 list of fastest-growing colleges within the small-institution group is topped by three institutions from Northern Plains states (North Dakota and Montana), and includes five other institutions from the northern Rocky Mountain and Plains regions. Looking across groups, it appears that growth is occurring across many regions of the United States. But it is also apparent that the institutional size categories reflect differences in the population base of various regions, as well as different practices in delivering two-year college resources to state residents.

While it is dangerous to draw broad conclusions from these data, it does appear that some two-year colleges are experiencing rapid increases in demand. Although we are only showing the top 50 growth institutions in each category, fully three-quarters of the entire set of institutions (704 out of 939) experienced some growth. There is clearly a strong demand for postsecondary education at community colleges and other public, two-year institutions.

* Diné College; Educational Cultural Complex; Quincy College; Henry Ford Community College; Northwest Technical College-Detroit Lakes; Northwest Technical College-East Grand Forks; Mesabi Range Community And Technical College; South Central Technical College-Faribault; Northwest Technical College-Moorhead; Central Lakes College-Staples; Northwest Technical College; Minnesota State College-Southeast; Fort Berthold Community College; Texas Southmost College; Snow College South; Fox Valley Technical College At Appleton; Lock Haven University Of Pennsylvania-Clearfield; Cambridge Community College-Campus Of Anoka; Pearl River Community College-Forrest County Ctr; Texas State Technical College-Marshall; and Cumberland Valley Technical College-Middlesboro.

** Hartnell College; Manhattan Area Technical College; Central Community College; Metropolitan Community College Area ; Mid Plains Community College Area; Northeast Community College; Southeast Community College Area; Nebraska College Of Technical Agriculture; Western Nebraska Community College; Erie Community College; Candeska Cikana Community College Fort; Carl Albert State College; Redlands Community College; Collin County Community College; Lac Courte Oreilles Ojibwa Community College; Suffolk County Community College; Pierce College At Puyallup; Ivy Tech State College-Bloomington; Blue River Community College; and Arkansas State University-Newport.

*** North Harris Montgomery Community College District; Cuyahoga Community College District; Solano County Community College District; Wayne County Community College District; Eastern Iowa Community College District; Howard County Junior College District; Iowa Valley Community College District; and Feather River Community College District.

**** San Diego City College; San Joaquin Delta College; Southeastern Community College; Anoka-Ramsey Community College; Northwest Technical College-Bemidji; Central Lakes College-Brainerd; South Central Technical College-Mankato; Mesabi Range Community And Technical College; Minnesota State College-SE Technical-Red Wing; Ridgewater College; Pearl River Community College; Mohawk Valley Community College-Utica Branch; Houston Community College System; Snow College; University of Wisconsin Colleges; and West Virginia Northern Community College.

The Courier-Journal
December 11, 2002

JCC receives 'clean bill of health'
School corrects deficiencies, has accreditation reaffirmed

Jefferson Community College was released from warning status yesterday, after correcting dozens of deficiencies that had jeopardized its accreditation and access to federal student aid.

The Southern Association of Colleges and Schools reaffirmed the school's accreditation at its annual conference in San Antonio, almost one year after it told JCC to rectify 57 problems or face possible penalties.

The decision, which came after an encouraging inspection in October, marked the end of a long improvement effort and, officials hope, a mended reputation.

''It's a complete affirmation and amounts to a clean bill of health,'' said JCC's president, Tony Newberry. ''The net result is that we have a stronger institution.''

JCC is part of the Jefferson Community and Technical College district, which includes about 9,450 JCC students in Louisville, southwestern Jefferson County and Carrollton, Ky., as well as about 3,600 students at Jefferson Technical College.

It was placed on warning -- a public sanction -- last December after a 15-member inspection team issued a critical report in spring 2001. It noted such problems as failing to update or evaluate its strategic plan and not assessing how well its students do when they go on to four-year colleges, take professional licensing exams or get jobs.

The college also was criticized for upkeep and maintenance and for some transfer students not knowing how many hours of academic credit they would receive for previous course work.

Newberry said such problems, if not corrected within two years, ultimately threatened the school's accreditation and, as a result, its federal student aid.

John Sistarenik, professor of political science, said he was relieved. ''This helps identify us as the quality institution we are,'' he said, noting that the cited deficiencies largely centered on planning and evaluation rather than the quality of programs or faculty.

Michael Ginsberg, an associate professor of English, said the news was welcome. He said the problems were ''embarrassing'' and had caused morale to slump among teachers and students.

''Students were wondering if the school was going to close,'' he said. ''We've been telling students for the past year and a half things were getting better. We hit bottom, and now we're coming back up. This is a validation of that.''

Accreditation is an evaluation process that determines whether schools meet minimum standards and demonstrate a commitment to providing quality education. Colleges and universities are re-evaluated every 10 years.

Diane Calhoun-French, JCC's provost and vice president for academic and student affairs, reached at the meeting in Texas, said the association's Commission on Colleges reaffirmed JCC's accreditation yesterday.

Jim Rogers, executive director of the commission, confirmed that the sanction had been lifted but had no additional detail.

Newberry said the group set no conditions and did not require follow-up visits.

Newberry -- who took over July 1 -- said that, although painful, correcting each of the more than four dozen problems has resulted in a better, more efficient college. A redesigned planning and evaluation process, for example, now sets performance goals for each college program. They are reviewed annually for possible improvement.

Also, the college revamped its long-range plan to better develop new programs and expand campus facilities to meet a growing student enrollment and other needs.

The News-Enterprise
December 12, 2002

Editorial

Critics are finding plenty wrong with Elizabethtown Community College's decision to invite Angela Davis to speak earlier this month. Bringing in a radical activist with communist leanings is, they claim, downright un-American.

To be sure, Davis and the establishment have never seen eye to eye. At the height of the civil rights movement and anti-war protests of the late 1960s, Davis was right in the middle of things. A member of the Black Panthers who ran for vice president on the Communist ticket in 1968, Davis was jailed in 1970 on charges she provided guns to black prisoners who used them in a botched escape attempt outside a California courthouse that left four people dead. She was acquitted by an all-white jury.

In radical times, Davis resorted to radical measures. Today, older and wiser, Davis remains steadily anti-establishment. She vocally opposed war with Iraq a decade ago and, at ECC, urged listeners to decide for themselves whether war this time around is justified.

Is that un-American? We don't think so. Anti-war? Without question. They are two different things.

To those who would prefer that academia muzzle people like Davis, we must pose a couple of questions. What criteria shall Elizabethtown Community College use to select its guest lecturer lineup? And by whose personal political beliefs should that criteria be set?

Those are difficult questions to answer. Thankfully, the First Amendment does it for us. For the country's founders, the suppression of free speech, assembly and ideas was so intolerable that the issue took top priority in the Bill of Rights. It was that system of governance by a ruling elite that fledgling Americans were escaping, and a nation ruled by consensus relies fundamentally on an open and honest exchange of opinions, without censorship.

We urge ECC to hold steady, and not cave in to pressure to draw a line in the sand when it comes to who it invites to speak. To decline an opportunity to bring in a speaker with Davis' rich civil rights

history down from Louisville because of conflicting political ideals would have been an injustice to its students and a blow to free speech.

The 250-plus people who turned out for Davis' speech were there by choice, and we'll leave it to the capable students at ECC to decide for themselves whether Davis' ideas have any merit.

Fact is, you don't have to agree with Davis on anything, but it's hard to argue with the premise upon which people like her get to share their beliefs.

To think otherwise, ultimately, seems most un-American.