The Secretary of Education’s Commission on the Future of Higher Education

Testimony by Mary L. Fifield, President of Bunker Hill Community College

Good Morning, Chairman Miller and members of the Commission. My name is Mary Fifield
and I am President of Bunker Hill Community College here in Boston. I am honored to present
remarks and recommendations today on behalf of the American Association of Community
Colleges as well as my own community college, as part of this national dialog on higher
education.

Community colleges are a uniquely American invention. From their start as junior colleges in
the early 1900s, these two-year institutions signaled a dramatic change that expanded educational
opportunity from the affluent to the poorest and most disadvantaged among us. With the basic
philosophy that everyone deserves the chance to go to college, immediately following World
War II two-year colleges proliferated and made real the Truman Commission’s concept of a
community college geographically accessible to all.

Today there are more than 1,150 community colleges across this great country that enroll almost
half of all students who go to college. We train students for high demand jobs; we educate for
transfer to baccalaureate degree-granting institutions; we help the unprepared get ready for
college level academic programs; we teach English as a Second Language and basic literacy
skills; we introduce international students to the American system of higher education; we
provide valuable community service offerings to support business and civic interests; and we
forge multiple partnerships with K-12 schools. In short, we aspire to, and in many cases meet,
the total postsecondary needs of our population, as the Truman Commission envisioned.

Our institutions attract a greater diversity of students than any other sector of higher education.
Consider that in community colleges about two-thirds of all students are part-time compared to
about a quarter of students in baccalaureate degree-granting institutions. Fifty-four percent work
fulltime, 34 percent have dependents, 16 percent are single parents, and 23 percent spend six to
20 hours a week commuting to their college classes. More than 45 percent of community college
enrollees are first generation college students and almost 44 percent of community college
students are 25 or older.

As Kay McClenney observes in an essay titled, Keeping America’s Promise: Challenges for
Community Colleges, “…going to college is not what it used to be...that is an 18 year old leaving
home to live on or near a campus, attending classes full-time and typically earning the degree
four years later where she or he started”. In fact, the terms traditional and nontraditional students
have undergone a role reversal of sorts. For a good part of mainstream America, a nontraditional
student is now the norm.

It is within this context of a changed definition of college student that I present the following
issues and recommendations as they pertain to affordability, access, accountability and quality of
our nation’s higher education system, and particularly as these issues affect the more than 12
million students who attend community colleges annually.

1
Affordability
Issue
State support for higher education continues to be viewed as discretionary and fluctuates greatly
with the economic health of a given state. Budget cuts or stagnating funding results in higher
student tuitions; these in turn limit access, especially for the many low income students who
attend community colleges.
Recommendation
Provide federal incentives to state and local governments to establish a sustained funding policy
to provide adequate appropriations to public higher education institutions.

Issue
According to the Education Commission of the States (ECS), more than 12 percent of the
population lives below the poverty line…nearly 34 million people. These and other low income
people have a little more than a 20 percent chance of going to college. For African-Americans
and Latinos the percentage is lower. For low income students, the availability of financial aid
becomes the deciding factor affecting college attendance. Yet increasingly, both static amounts
of aid, such as the four year freeze of Pell Grants, and the policies governing eligibility of grants,
such as the new Academic Competitiveness Grant, serve as disincentives to low-income
students. Further, federal programs designed to provide pathways from high school to college,
especially important to populations unaccustomed to considering college as an option, are under-
funded or slated for elimination, as evidenced by the FY2007 budget that deletes programs such
as GEAR UP, Upward Bound and Talent Search.
Recommendations
Break the four year freeze on funding for Pell Grants. Create Pell Grant eligibility for stand-
alone ESL programs. Revise policies governing Pell Grants so that grants for college are
committed to students while they are still in middle and high school (the latter recommendation
is a BHCC proposal only).
Establish a sustained commitment to fund pre-college enrichment programs such as GEAR UP,
Upward Bound and Talent Search.
Provide incentives for dual enrollment programs to give high school students early familiarity
with a college environment.
Expand eligibility for the Academic Competitiveness Grant from exclusively full-time
enrollment to include the two-thirds of community college students who are part-time.

Issue
Increasingly, federal grant opportunities for students are shifting from need-based to more
exclusionary merit-based aid, while need-based aid such as Pell decreases in real value. The new
Academic Competitiveness Grants, for instance, require recipients to complete “a rigorous high
school program.” Many low income students don’t have the option of selecting their high school
and could be ineligible for this aid through no fault of their own. Similarly, the proposed PACE
Act provides four year competitive scholarships to students who obtain bachelors’ degrees in the
sciences, engineering or mathematics and concurrent certification as K-12 mathematics or
science teachers. These merit-based funds are to be awarded “on the basis of national
examinations”. In short, merit-based financial aid programs appear to help students who need
financial assistance least.

2
Recommendation
Establish a federal policy that makes need-based grants the primary aid for low income students
and expand need-based grant opportunities.

Issue
The Workforce Investment Act (WIA) has not delivered on connecting business training needs to
community colleges as providers of that training. WIA requirements work contrary to
encouraging training participants. Further, under the Workforce Investment Act’s customer-
based system, federal training funds flow to community colleges primarily through the
Individual Training Accounts controlled by Workforce Investment Act participants. These funds
cover tuition and fees for the WIA participants, but not the other costs of developing and
implementing training programs, which far exceed the tuition revenue generated.
Recommendation
WIA policies should be revised to encourage more training; One-Stop Career Centers should be
authorized to assess WIA participants and immediately refer them for training. In addition, WIA
should provide separate funding to support training program development.

Accessibility
Issue
Federal adult basic education programs do not reflect the large scale of community college
involvement in this area. Community colleges offer literacy training as well as English as a
Second Language courses as prerequisites to enrollment in workforce education certificate and
degree programs. Similarly, these courses are provided to employers on site.
Recommendation
Adult basic education should be explicitly linked to the workforce training mission of
community colleges. Federal grants with a required match should be considered to motivate
greater state and private investment in adult basic education and literacy training.

Issue
Passage of federal legislation to assist undocumented immigrant students to obtain a college
education continues to face obstacles. Immigrants today account for one of every 20 employees
in the workforce. Generally they occupy jobs in service and blue collar occupations. Lacking a
college education, they are disproportionately located in these unskilled and low paying jobs.
Many prospective college students who are immigrants have spent most of their lives in this
country. They have been educated in our public schools. Prohibiting their access to public
higher education results in a waste of talent and exacerbates the already alarming shortage of
skilled workers in our nation.
Recommendation
Put postsecondary education within reach of undocumented immigrant students who have grown
up and gone to high school in the United States by passing the DREAM Act. Federal (and state)
financial aid should be made available to most categories of undocumented immigrant students;
it is in the national interest to do so.

3
Accountability
Issue
In an effort to obtain more information about institutional activity, including graduation rates, the
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) has explored a new information collection
system in which data would be submitted by institutions on a student-by-student basis. Students’
social security numbers or other identifiers would be used to match data files. The new system
would include data on tuition and fees paid as well as individual loans and grants. Funds would
need to be provided for the system.
Recommendation
This proposal has serious implications for student privacy and should be examined with
skepticism. Use of individual social security numbers or other identifiers by colleges is
dangerous due to the possibility of identity theft or other release of the data. Finally, we are not
convinced of the argument for collecting individual data rather than aggregated institutional data
as is currently the practice.

Issue
Since 1997, the standard measure of success for community colleges used by The Integrated
Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) is based upon the number of first-time, full-time
students who graduate within three years. Since the majority of community college students are
part-time, these data capture only a fraction of our students. The data are further skewed by the
fact that a significant number of the first time, full-time cohort transfer before graduation or cut
back to part-time status due to family and job responsibilities. In both cases, these students are
counted as failures and contribute to lowered completion rates for community colleges.
Recommendation
There needs to be recognition that community colleges are “open door” institutions enrolling a
majority of part-time students with many and differing goals that may or may not include degree
completion. Further, community college students differ in their degree of academic preparation
and frequently need developmental education that prolongs their time to degree completion. In
addition, many are low-income students with both family and job responsibilities that disrupt the
continuity of their education. Public policy for measuring student success should incorporate
multiple indicators and include learning outcomes; licensure exam pass rates; individual student
goal attainment; transfer rates; employment success and results of surveys such as the
Community College Survey of Student Engagement (CCSSE).

Quality
Issue
For community college students who transfer, acceptance of credits by receiving institutions is
critical to timely degree completion. Articulation agreements between individual community
colleges and four-year institutions delineate transferability on a course-by-course or, sometimes,
program-by-program basis. Nevertheless, the process is long, tedious and not always successful,
causing students to lose credits already earned at community colleges.
Recommendation
Federal incentives should be provided to encourage states to develop systematic and
comprehensive articulation policies and procedures.

4
Issue
The Science and Engineering Indicators 2006 Report underscores the need to improve and
expand science and mathematics education from K-12 levels. This is both an issue of world
competitiveness and emerging workforce requirements pertaining to science, mathematics,
engineering and technology (STEM). Community colleges’ roles include coursework for
preparation of K-12 science and mathematics teachers as well as two-year degrees and
certificates in these areas. Because more students are enrolled in community colleges than any
other segment of higher education, it is imperative that community colleges be included in
STEM initiatives.
Recommendation
Expand programs such as Tech Prep that introduce and interest high school students in STEM
and link them explicitly to community college programs of study. Provide federal incentives for
the development of STEM programs at community colleges as well as professional development
opportunities in STEM fields for community college faculty.

Conclusion
The American Association of Community Colleges and American Association for State Colleges
and Universities characterize community college students as “…the most vulnerable members of
our society who already face significant financial and social challenges – low income, limited
expectations and uneven preparation.” Yet this is the real majority. This is the future of our
country. This is the workforce of America who will make the difference between a prosperous
economy and one that falters.

In a report issued by the Education Commission of the States Center for Community College
Policy titled, Closing The College Participation Gap – A National Summary, author Sandra
Ruppert offers what might well be the ultimate measure of accountability for federal public
policy in higher education. I agree with Dr. Ruppert that “Ultimately, the goal to build a nation
of learners will be measured in terms of how well the nation is able to educate those most
difficult to reach.” These are our community college students.

I appreciate the opportunity to address you today and look forward to your questions. Thank you.