The Illinois public community college board members

Recently Published Dissertations on Community and Junior Colleges

ABSTRACTIt is currently unknown how many Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) exist at community colleges. This study investigates the percentage of public and Tribal community colleges that have active IRBs. It also examines the potential relationships between states that allow community colleges to confer baccalaureate degrees, or that have articulation agreements, and community college IRBs. Data were drawn from the United States Department of Health and Human Services in conjunction with the American Association of Community Colleges and state department of education websites in order to create a national snapshot of active and deactivated IRBs at these institutions. It was most common for a state to have at least one IRB at public community colleges. Conversely, the majority of states with Tribal community colleges did not have IRBs. Further, while no association was found between states that allow community colleges to confer baccalaureate degrees, states with an articulation agreement were more likely to have an active IRB at their community colleges. Trends potentially unique to community college IRB implementation appeared evident, including one IRB to oversee a district or state of community colleges. Future research is needed to clarify the rationales behind these decisions. Creating an IRB is one way in which community colleges might claim a more active leadership role in being both subject and producer of scholarship in the literature.

Online education is the fastest growing form of course delivery of higher education in the United States. It has revolutionized how students and instructors interact in the educational process. Yet students in online courses continue to experience higher attrition rates than their counterparts in traditional face-to-face classes despite the advantages offered by the technology. This study examined the impact that institutional policies and practices at community colleges in the state of Texas have had on student persistence in online courses. It also examined how institutions collect and use data in addressing students' attrition. The findings were used to identify the most effective institutional practices to share with community college systems in Texas in an effort to improve student persistence in online courses across the state. The population for the study consisted of the 50 public two-year community college and the technical college systems in the state of Texas. The study used a mixed method. A theoretical model of institutional impact on online persistence was drawn from the literature review. This model's five categories were then used to construct a survey to collect data on institutional practices and measure the effectiveness in addressing student persistence. Four college systems were identified using the survey data that best met the five categories. Interviews were then conducted at these four college systems to produce case studies of these institutions' practices and experiences with online persistence. The results highlighted the roles that institutions play in promoting student persistence in online programs. They revealed differences in the ways institutions define and track student success in online programs and the difficulty these differences pose in comparatively evaluating various institutions' programs. Results lent support to the theoretical model of institutional impact on online persistence that was developed for this study, and results yielded a proposed list of promising practices to enhance student persistence in online programs in public two-year community and technical colleges.

This dissertation identifies and analyzes factors of influence shaping the voting behavior of public state-funded university system board members in the State of Louisiana. The study focuses on university board members voting decisions in budget & finance, academic & student affairs and personnel agenda item issues at their respective board meetings. Eleven (11) factors of influence were from drawn from previous literature on legislative voting behavior. In this study, the factors are referred to as Board member colleagues, Board chairperson, Committee member chairpersons, University constituents (i.e. administrators, faculty, staff, students and parents), Fiscal impact to the University, Governor, Legislature, Media & Research (i.e. personal reading through the internet, books, newsletters, etc…), Non-university community (i.e. Community and/or Business & Industry), Re-appointment to the board, and the System President. The method utilized for this case study was in-depth individual interviews, direct observations, along with surveys to identify the most salient factors of influence on the voting behavior of university board members. A purposeful sampling of twenty-eight (28) surveys and sixteen (16) individual interviews with university board members were conducted in the spring and summer of 2014. Twenty-eight questions were designed from the survey to elicit spontaneous responses from university board members. Findings indicated that fiscal impact on the university, the role of the systems president, the board and committee chairperson and university constituents were considered high factors of influence on the voting behavior of public state-funded university board member voting behavior in the state of Louisiana. This study is the first to examine factors influencing the voting behavior of the public state-funded university board members. A surprising finding revealed that institutional culture of the colleges and universities the board members represented played a significant role in university board members voting behavior.By providing an analysis of Louisiana’s governance structure in higher education, this study broadens the understanding on the voting behavior of public state-funded university board members; as well as provides insight on the present-day vital role governing board members play in shaping higher educational policy on the institutional level and the sustainability of the colleges and universities they serve.

New Directions for Community CollegesVolume 1979, Issue 26 p. vii-x Editors' Note Editors' notes Maxwell C. King, Maxwell C. King Maxwell C. King is president of Breuard Community College, Cocoa, Florida, and chairman of the boards of directors of the Community College Cooperative for International Development and the American Association of Community and Junior College International/Intercultural Consortium. He has served as a consultant to Kenya and to the Republic of China.Search for more papers by this authorRobert L. Breuder, Robert L. Breuder Robert L. Breuder is special assistant to the president at Breuard Community College and serves as executive director of the Community College Cooperative for International Development. He is the author of several articles on international education and director of the nationally recognized Community College World Studies ProgramSearch for more papers by this author Maxwell C. King, Maxwell C. King Maxwell C. King is president of Breuard Community College, Cocoa, Florida, and chairman of the boards of directors of the Community College Cooperative for International Development and the American Association of Community and Junior College International/Intercultural Consortium. He has served as a consultant to Kenya and to the Republic of China.Search for more papers by this authorRobert L. Breuder, Robert L. Breuder Robert L. Breuder is special assistant to the president at Breuard Community College and serves as executive director of the Community College Cooperative for International Development. He is the author of several articles on international education and director of the nationally recognized Community College World Studies ProgramSearch for more papers by this author First published: 1979 https://doi.org/10.1002/cc.36819792602 AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat Volume1979, Issue261979Pages vii-x RelatedInformation

The Community College Presidency at the Millennium by George B. Vaughan and Iris M. Weisman. Community College Press, Washington, D.C. 1998, 173 pages. $26 AACC members or $33 nonmembers (Paper, ISBN 0-87117-311-5). Reviewed by H. Clay Whitlow. In The Community College Presidency at the Millennium, George Vaughan and Iris Weisman have made a valuable contribution to the literature on the community college presidency. The book essentially presents a longitudinal study of the presidency that started in 1984 when 591 of 838 public community college presidents participated in Vaughan's first career and life-style survey. The survey was repeated in 1991 (with 837 out of 1,097 public community college presidents responding) and in 1996 (when 680 out of 926 presidents participated). The survey asked a wide variety of questions (55 in number) relating to each president's age, ethnicity, gender, political affiliation, position held before first presidency, and other background information. Vaughan and Weisman have compiled this wealth of information from the three surveys in a way that is eminently readable. They also have enhanced the data by including personal interviews with 13 community college presidents. The authors begin by taking a brief look at the history of community colleges, from the of Joliet Junior College in 1901 to the 1960s and 1970s when the number of community colleges nationwide grew dramatically. In 1961 there were 405 public community colleges in the United States. By 1977 that number had grown to 1,030. This created a substantial group of individuals referred to by the authors as founding presidents. These presidents or their proteges represented the majority of public community college presidents in the 1960s and 1970s. Unfortunately, we have no record of presidential life during these boom years for community colleges. Thanks to Vaughan and Weisman, future generations of presidents and scholars will be able to study the community college presidency from 1984 forward. Chapter 2 provides a personal profile of the public community college presidency based on survey responses. A reader learns, for example, that the average age of current presidents is 54 (increased from 51 in 1984); male presidents are much more likely to be married than female presidents (95 % versus 60 %); the most popular civic organization among presidents is Rotary, with 62 % belonging; 47 % of presidents are Democrats, and 26 % are Republicans; women, and to a lesser extent minorities, have increased their numbers among presidents. From 1991 to 1996, the percentage of women presidents increased from 11 % to 18 %, whereas the percentage of minorities went from 11 % in 1991 to 14 % in 1996. One interesting and disturbing item is the time presidents put into their jobs, perhaps to the detriment of their personal lives. Just 24% of those responding to the 1996 survey reported taking a vacation of two weeks or more in the last year. Of those, 69% performed presidential work while on vacationing. There is also fascinating information in Chapter 3 on presidents' perceptions of stress and risk in their jobs and on their plans to move to another position or retire. Lest the reader get bogged down in quantitative data, Chapter 4 begins a summary of telephone interviews with current presidents. …

Community colleges have become among the most popular public higher education institutions in the nation to provide transfer, technical, developmental, business and industry, and community service education. Once considered the junior partner in the higher education enterprise (and on average receiving less state aid per student than their four-year counterparts), public community colleges now provide education to more than one-half of all citizens enrolled in postsecondary education. In the last decade, they have also become the core workforce development institutions of our nation. In many ways, these institutions have seen their role and mission evolve to the point that they now have goals that in many respects resemble those defined for land grant universities, established by the Morrill Act during the nineteenth century (Cohen & Brawer, 1996). Public community college leaders often lament that their institutions are low on the food chain when it comes to their state's funding priorities. This may be due partially to the lack of attention paid to cost-and-benefit analyses in funding requests. Policymakers around the nation will likely find themselves spending increasing amounts of time validating fair and equitable funding allocation criteria (Burke & Serban, 1998). As the squeeze on available state aid becomes increasingly oppressive, comparing costs outlays to the investment returns gained by states were they to invest more in community college education will become a higher priority for community college leaders. Yet barriers exist to promoting this position (Goodchild, Lovell, Hines, & Gill, 1997), among which include the following: (a) a noticeable inability of college leaders to demonstrate that community colleges are underfunded, especially in the context of their sizable contributions to life in America, (b) the lack of consensus among policymakers regarding efficient and equitable policy options that a state's higher education systems might choose in making resource requests and allocation decisions, (c) a dearth of consistent and timely research that explores, tests, and develops functional theories of state funding, and (d) the absence of ongoing examinations of how existing funding model practices affect postsecondary education institutions and the broader society they seek to serve. Literature Review As the new millennium begins, a variety of methods exist for requesting and allocating state funds to support the operation of public community colleges (Breneman & Taylor, 1996). Practitioners and scholars with an understanding of the theories, practices, and nuances in the finance and funding strategies employed by community college systems recognize that one approach to state aid does not fit all. Indeed, a plethora of forces unique to each state environment shape how funding requests and distributions are made. The rationales and methods that state policymakers use to allocate financial support for higher education can be nearly as important as the amount of that support (Richardson, Bracco, Callan, & Finney, 1999). More pointedly, an acceptable sense of fair play must exist in any funding allocation model. Moreover, the methods selected for allocating state funds typically must be viewed as affordable as well as politically acceptable to those approving and those receiving state financial support. Funding can be complex, highly politicized, and not prone to easy solutions (Kane, 1999). Although seldom discussed in a scholarly framework, politicizing of funding practices can be potent: The history of political parties in power and the relative pecking order of the various sectors consuming public funds, including higher education, play a major role in funding allocation decisions (McKeown & Alexander, 1986). Currently, in many states, the responsibility for establishing state funding allocations to public institutions of postsecondary education lies directly with each state's legislative bodies. …

Distributive effect of state subsidy to undergraduate education: the case of Illinois

Researchers have found that, although community colleges continue to remain gendered organizations, their climates and cultures are perceived to be more open to women than are their college and university peers. Community colleges may in fact still have the male orientation of the higher education system despite their efforts to be “gender-friendly” work environments. This study explored female noninstructional professional staff at public community colleges in the United States to determine if their perceptions of their institutions’ norms and practices supported a gender neutral and friendly working environment or if gendered norms and practices were occurring. Quantitative methods were used to analyze the data collected from 934 participants who responded to the researcher-developed survey. Descriptive and inferential statistics were used to analyze the results. The findings of the study indicated that a majority of the participants perceived there to be demonstrated gender equality issues at their institutions and that women still were seen as social organizers of events in some instances. The results also indicated that there were some perceptional differences of the genderedness of institutional norms and practices based on position held (deans, directors, coordinators, librarians, and others), ethnicity, and age ranges of the participants. By understanding the perceptions of female noninstructional professional staff of their working environments, community colleges can evaluate their institutional norms and practices to determine if they are gender equitable and to improve their operation practices as needed.

In 1991, the Missouri Business and Education Partnership presented the state's Department of Higher Education with a plan of “differentiated institutional missions,” with the goal of improving public four-year colleges and universities in terms of student success, institutional effectiveness, and system wide efficiency. The objective was to have each institution identify its unique areas of expertise and determine the appropriate degree of admissions selectivity necessary to execute its mission. From the time the initiative was adopted, questions about access and enrollment shifting plagued the effort. Millions of dollars in special mission enhancement funding were appropriated during the past decade, but most Missouri institutions of higher education continue to remain out of compliance with their own self-selected admission standards. This paper discusses the effects of this tiered system of selective admissions on enrollment patterns at public four-year colleges and universities, public community colleges, and independent institutions in Missouri. Data available were interpreted to mean an enrollment shift had been underway among Missouri four-year colleges and universities, but the shift did not seem to be between public four-year institutions (selective to open enrollment, etc.). Rather, a dramatic shift in enrollment away from public four-year institutions, and toward community colleges and four-year independent institutions occurred during the past several years. During the past two decades enrollment at public four-year institutions declined from 57% to 45% of total student FTE in the state. Conversely, combined enrollment at public community colleges and independent four-year institutions increased from slightly less than 43% to approximately 55% of total student FTE.

The reverse transfer literature contains studies investigating the demographic characteristics of postsecondary students that attended a community college after attending a four-year institution, and their proportion in the community college student population. A few researchers have investigated reverse transfer student motives for enrolling in the two-year college. However, the literature is lacking studies exploring the intentions of reverse transfer students to complete their programs of study at the community college, and how these intentions impact retention and completion measures of effectiveness at the community college. The purpose of this study was to examine reverse transfer student demographic characteristics, education background, and motivations for participating in reverse transfer behavior to predict program completion at the community college. The research design of this study used a survey administered to 860 students in classes in two community college districts. Data were analyzed using correlations and hierarchical regression analyses. The findings demonstrated that reverse transfer students in the study group bore substantial differences to reverse transfer students reported in earlier national literature. The only statistically significant predictive variables for program completion identified were gender and marital status: married students and female students were more likely to indicate that they intend to complete their programs of study than other reverse transfer students.

Much has been written about the university department chair, but little is known about whether the community college chair position is different. The profile and job perceptions of community college department chairs, and how the job of the community college chair compare to the university chair profile illustrated in the literature remains unclear. Knowing what differences exist would have implications for the selection and training of community college chairs. To investigate this question, survey research was used to gather information about the community college department chair position. Replicating previous survey research on university chairs, the 39-question survey was administered to 178 randomly selected math, science, and social sciences department chairs from community colleges in each state in the United States. Nineteen percent of surveys were completed. Community college chairs differed from university chairs in perceptions of skills, challenges, and tasks. Communication was ranked the most necessary skill, stress was ranked the greatest challenge, faculty tasks were ranked the most pleasant, and the need to justify the viability of the department was ranked the least pleasant. Results indicate that the position of community college chair does differ from the university chair. While similar in demographic profile, satisfaction rates, and reasons for taking the job, findings demonstrate community college chairs face the challenge of higher stress levels and concerns about their department’s viability. These findings suggest the need for specialized training to prepare incoming and current community college chairs to be successful in this unique position.

S. R. Grover Getting Green: Fundraising Campaigns for Community Colleges. Washington, DC: Community College Press, 2009. 229 pp. $46.00.Getting Green is a comprehensive manual on fundraising campaigns specifically for community college sector. The 25 short chapters are organized into three sections: Before Campaign, the Campaign, and After Campaign. The first chapter is actually one of most important contributions of this work, outlining case for private support at community colleges and detailing similarities and differences of fundraising for community colleges versus other nonprofit organizations. Grover explains that rather than launch campaigns from well-established fundraising programs, community colleges often use campaigns to jump-start their fundraising efforts. Community colleges have advantage of close relationships with their local business communities. Even so, awareness of colleges' contributions is often limited, which becomes particularly challenging because everyone is a potential (p. vii).Grover asserts that targeted marketing and educational efforts, particularly by informed and engaged foundation board members, can help convey important message of community college mission to that broad, potentially contributing audience of nearly everyone. The book explicitly targets board members as its core audience because they are in positions of influence and power. These college insiders can also interact rather seamlessly with external groups as volunteers. The explanation of fundraising challenges and opportunities at community college can be an especially useful tool for these core constituents and can help avoid problematic ideas around fundraising.This book has potential for enlightening audiences well beyond board members, however. Although some of material is specific to campaigns, much of information is useful in explaining general fundraising practices and would be beneficial for other administrators (particularly presidents), faculty members, and key constituents such as trustees.In addition to understanding and articulating case for private support, foundation board members (and others involved in fundraising) often struggle with notion of asking people for money. Grover wisely addresses this concern in early chapters, demonstrating how fundraising constitutes a win-win situation for both donors and recipients, and explaining ethical principles that must govern all fundraising activities.In remaining chapters within precampaign section, Grover covers strategic planning, feasibility studies, marketing materials, and every facet of campaign structure and gift management systems. The text has helpful pullout quotes and check boxes that further book's usefulness as an enduring reference.Near conclusion of part one, Grover notes that recognizing is your real work as a board member (p. 100), which helps to justify message in first chapter of part two: Board gifts must form campaign's lead contributions. The succeeding chapters detail process of securing gifts from those closest to college - faculty, staff, retirees, and even students (indeed, one of book's strengths is its intentional focus throughout on internal concerns) - in addition to other leadership gifts from top donors board helps to solicit.As a whole, chapter on solicitation falls short. This is particularly troubling because information on making calls, or reaching out to potential donors, has application beyond campaigns. Whereas other aspects of fundraising process are treated in detail, Grover condenses ask into one rushed chapter that blurs process between cultivation and solicitation. Grover makes an early reference to fact that time between an initial call on a prospective donor and actual receipt of a gift from that donor can be considerable, but book's treatment of process of asking is so condensed that it lacks a sense of timing. …

ABSTRACTThe study examined how institutional and student characteristics may influence the earning of student success points by state-supported community colleges under the Texas performance funding system that was fully implemented in the 2016–2017 biennium. Texas has historically funded community colleges based on an enrollment formula; however, the funding system was revised in 2013 by setting aside 10% of the enrollment-based formula funding appropriations to be earned back through a performance funding system based on student success points earned. The quantitative study used a correlation design with three hierarchical multiple regression analyses to examine the relationships between the student outcomes measures for public community colleges and institutional and student characteristics. The data examined were collected by the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board and made available to the public through an interactive website tool. Findings showed that although several student and institutional characteristics were significant predictors of the total success points earned, when the analysis focused on the change in success points between two sets of three-year averages, none of the student or institutional characteristics were significant predictors. These findings support the design of the Texas performance funding system and suggest that community colleges serving higher proportions of at-risk students, including students who are a minority, low socioeconomic status, part-time, and are age 25 and older, will not be disadvantaged using the system’s methodology of comparing an institution to its own historic performance. The contributions of this study are intended to assist state policymakers who are designing performance funding systems.

As J. C. Miner points out in her Editorial “America's community colleges” (23 March, p. [1409][1]), community colleges offer outstanding training opportunities in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) for underrepresented populations. They also provide an important STEM training opportunity for veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, a population that unfortunately has been preyed upon by for-profit universities. The Post-9/11 G.I. Bill provides veterans and their families generous educational benefits but, as the U.S. Senate's HELP Committee's ongoing investigation reported ([ 1 ][2]), 37% of the $4.4 billion spent between 2009 and 2011 went to for-profit educational institutions, which trained only 25% of the veterans. In these schools, the cost per veteran averaged $10,875, compared with $4,874 in public colleges. Moreover, the withdrawal rate for bachelor's students in the eight most generously funded for-profit schools averaged a disappointing 53.3%, compared with 19.8% in public schools. The investigation reported that “[t]he majority of students enrolling in for-profit schools emerge with debt but without a diploma.” President Obama sought to end these abuses through an Executive Order signed at Fort Stewart on 27 April ([ 2 ][3]). ![Figure][1] Supporting the troops. President Obama signs an Executive Order to protect veterans from deceptive marketing by for-profit schools. CREDIT: DAVID GOLDMAN/ AP PHOTO Community colleges offer broad-based curricula, quality teaching, flexible class schedules, and (unlike many for-profit schools) college credits transferable to 4-year institutions, all at an affordable price. Yet cuts in state funding are diminishing our community colleges. For example, California's outstanding system will endure a 5% budget cut in 2013, forcing a 20% decrease in course offerings ([ 3 ][4]); California's state college system is planning to freeze admissions, which will clog community colleges and curtail opportunities for new students, including veterans. Many young people opt for military service specifically to qualify for educational benefits, and some are primed for STEM training because of the positions they filled in the service. We owe these students quality STEM educational opportunities. Community colleges offer a superior product and value; they are veterans' best bet. 1. [↵][5]U.S. Senate, Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, “Benefitting whom? For-profit education companies and the growth of military educational benefits” (2010); . 2. [↵][6]1. T. Lewin , The New York Times (28 April 2012), p. A11; [www.nytimes.com/2012/04/28/education/obama-signs-order-to-protect-veterans-from-college-recruiters.html][7]. 3. [↵][8]1. C. Rivera , The Los Angeles Times (25 March 2012); . [1]: pending:yes [2]: #ref-1 [3]: #ref-2 [4]: #ref-3 [5]: #xref-ref-1-1 View reference 1 in text [6]: #xref-ref-2-1 View reference 2 in text [7]: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/28/education/obama-signs-order-to-protect-veterans-from-college-recruiters.html [8]: #xref-ref-3-1 View reference 3 in text