Ranking Community Colleges Kevin Carey SHEEO / NCES Data Conference April 16, 2008

The Community College Survey of Student Engagement  Very similar to NSSE, mostly identical questions. All results public.  Over 600 institutions over the last five years, more than half all CCs.  Results tabulated into five “benchmarks” - - Active and Collaborative Learning, Student Effort, Academic Challenge, Student-Faculty Interaction, Support for Learners.

CCSSE Validation Study  Released December 2006: Kay M. McClenney and C. Nathan Marti, "Exploring Relationships Between Student Engagement and Student Outcomes in Community Colleges: Report on Validation Research,"  Based on three separate studies of relationship between CCSSE benchmarks (and other constructs) and measures like GPA, progression, and attainment.  Findings: overall consistent, significant link between CCSSE and outcomes, but variable between measures and outcomes.

Community College Rankings  Public data, large number of participating CCs, validation study, create possibility for CC rankings based on valid, outcomes-linked measures of academic quality.  Addition of GRS graduation rates. (Bailey, Crosta, Jenkins 2007) found that while GRS graduation rate data for CCs flawed measure of absolute success, has utility for comparative (rankings) purposes.

Empirical Weighting  Most rankings weightings are either arbitrary (U.S. News) or equal (Washington Monthly). Significant source of valid criticism.  Validation study creates possibility to move toward empirical weighting.  Simple method: Based onTable 33 of the Validation study, "Bivariate Correlations between Outcomes Measures and CCSSE Constructs," Summed the number of time each of the five benchmarks showed a statistically significant correlation, giving extra weight based on the level of statistical significance--3 points for p<.001, 2 points for p<.01, and 1 point for p<.05.

Weighting Results  15 percent for GRS graduation rates (arbitrary)  Split up remaining 85 percent as follows: Active and Collaborative Learning:.289 Student Effort:.119 Academic Challenge:.187 Student-Faculty Interaction:.136 Support for Learners:.119  Consistent with validation study conclusions: “Active and Collaborative Learning was perhaps the most consistent predictor of student success across studies and across measures...The only other benchmark that exhibited this consistent pattern of positive correlations was Academic Challenge." (page 85)

The Results

Implications  Good teaching doesn’t necessarily involve vast amounts of money – per-student spending at Top 30 virtually the same as average for all CCs, far less than 4-yrs.  CCs can excel even in difficult environments – high-poverty, part-time.  Size matters  Excellence in higher education doesn’t take centuries. Most CCs relatively young, some younger. South Texas College (1990s), Cascadia (2000s).

Cascadia Community College  #2 Overall, #1 on most important indicator: Active and Collaborative Learning (two separate years)  Opened its doors less than seven years ago.  Large differences from typical CCSE results particularly A&C, group projects, etc.  Purposeful – designed with these ideas and principles in mind.

Quality Matters Most for Students Who Arrive with the Least