CHAPTER TWO:
LEARNING CONTEXT[*]

• Process of Work in Addressing Learning Context
• Design Assumptions
• Changing Context
• The Design Criteria
• Summary

The first element in the design process focuses on learning context and results in a set of design criteria to guide and monitor the development of design specifications and new designs in the elements to follow. As such, the description of learning context is arguably the most important element of the design process. It provides overall direction and ensures that the resulting design is tailored to the needs of a particular situation. The design criteria can be used as a "report card" to assess how the rest of the design process is progressing and to indicate needed adjustments.

This section is organized into the following parts: (1) the design assumptions for NDTYI, (2) the changing context of higher education in the United States with emphasis on the TYI, and (3) the design criteria for NDTYI. Before moving forward with these parts, an explanation is provided of how the learning context of TYIs was addressed for the purposes of NDTYI.

Process of Work in Addressing Learning Context

The process of work used to develop what is reported in this section started with a review of literature on the context of the TYI and discussions by the NDTYI Work Group. Work on the design assumptions was begun in preparation for a graduate course dealing with planning and evaluating TYIs, taught at the University of Minnesota during the spring of 1995 by George Copa. At about the same time, the NDTYI Work Group developed a preliminary set of characteristics of the context faced by TYIs on entering the 21st century and a preliminary set of design criteria that could be use to ensure that the NDTYI design specification and new designs were responsive and effective in addressing the context characteristics. A similar effort was undertaken as a class project in the graduate course noted above. The 21 participants in the graduate course were practicing administrators on TYI campuses or at the state system offices in Minnesota and Wisconsin. As a strategy for use in identifying the context of TYIs, each group was asked to first identify and prioritize the problems to be faced, the opportunities to be explored, and the goals to be sought by effective TYIs on entering the 21st century.

At the first meeting of the National Design Group, members were asked to undergo the same activity of identifying problems, opportunities, and goals in view of the conclusions of major reports addressing the context of TYIs (provided by the project staff), other reports with which they were familiar, and their own experiences. The NDTYI Work Group then presented the preliminary design criteria it had developed from its efforts at describing the learning context. The strategy used in the project was aimed at getting the original thoughts of the National Design Group, but also benefiting from more extensive work by the NDTYI Work Group and the graduate class. Following the presentation to the National Design Group by the NDTYI Work Group, the National Design Group was asked to prioritize the problems, opportunities, and goals of TYIs that most needed attention in new designs for these institutions. The results of these efforts were used to revise the recommendations of the NDTYI Work Group regarding design criteria, and the revisions are presented below as the NDTYI's design criteria. This set of criteria was reviewed several times by the National Design Group at subsequent meetings. As a result of the review by the National Design Group, another section was added to the learning context description presented in this report. The added section focuses on the key dimensions of the changing context of TYIs--changes which must be faced and serve as a basis for interest in and real concern about new designs for these institutions. The design criteria serve as a response to the dimensions of change, providing strategic clues about how to proceed in the NDTYI.

Design Assumptions

As will be apparent later in this section, a key part of new designs for the TYI on entering the 21st century will be dealing with a changing context on several dimensions at the same time. With this in mind, we wanted to formulate a few assumptions that would capture the essence of the strategy that we felt would lead to an appropriate design stance or posture for effective TYIs in the future.

The first assumption we selected is shown in Exhibit 1. The assumption brings attention to the idea of viewing change as a friend rather than an enemy, and letting change assist in finding a productive, satisfying way into the future for higher education. In "dancing with change," the question arises, "Is the higher education institution or some outside organization or force leading the dance process?" Our answer is that perhaps the leadership changes from time to time, and that the study of dance from a multicultural perspective suggested that there are many forms of dance where there is no one leader. A whole community may be involved in an integrated way in the whole dance process. The same might be the case for TYIs--at times follower, at other times leader, and at times both or neither. Another characteristic of dance is that there are many unique in forms and manners, yet there are often clear patterns that identify particular dances, one from another. The agile and effective TYIs of the future will need to be astute in ascertaining patterns in complex and turbulent change as guides to mission, vision, and effective responses.

The Pew report (Pew Higher Education Roundtable, 1994), from which the first design assumption is taken, goes on to note that convening the "conversation with change" is "to enter into a relation with a future not yet fully imagined. To demur, . . . is to let someone else choose your partner as well as call the tune" (p. 12A). They advise that the conversations emanate from "a strong collective sense of an institution's identity" (p. 12A). They must balance faculty collegiality with recognition that postponing painful steps is not an option, and draw on the best ideas of faculty for maintaining institutional energy and responsiveness.

The second design assumption is captured by Wheatley and Kellner-Rogers (1996) in a book entitled, A Simpler Way , and shown in Exhibit 2. Higher education must more clearly recognize and make use of its interdependencies with many individuals, organizations, associations, agencies, and communities. The challenge for TYIs that aspire to be really effective is to continuously seek and find many (large and small) synergies with other entities where resources can be leveraged and multiplied with positive, catalytic, and symbiotic impacts for all those involved. In the language of the Internet, institutions must be effective at "surfing for synergies" to improve their quality and effectiveness in the context of the problems, opportunities, and goals that they face with increasingly scarce resources.

Changing Context

As background for this section, several different reports will be reviewed that present descriptions of the changing context of higher education and, more particularly, TYIs. As noted above in the section on Process of Work in describing the learning context, except for the most recent reports, these are the materials that were presented to the NDTYI Work Group and National Design Group for their consideration in identifying the problems, opportunities, and goals to be addressed in NDTYI. The reports are presented in chronological order.

Assessing the Nature and Operation of Institutional Excellence in Vocational Education

In this report published by the National Center for Research in Vocational Education and authored by Wardlow, Swanson, and Migler (1992), the focus was on the essential elements that characterize exemplary vocational education institutions. This report is included here because vocational education institutions (e.g., technical institutes and colleges, private proprietary institutions) are an important form of the TYI, and vocational education programs are a major component of comprehensive community colleges, another form of the TYI. The fourteen institutions selected for study through a nomination process included six secondary and eight postsecondary (four technical colleges, one proprietary technical institute, and three community colleges) institutions scattered across the United States. The themes associated with effective institutions were categorized under the following headings: (1) School Climate, (2) Administration, (3) Teacher Attributes, (4) Student Attributes, (5) Vocational-Student Organization, (6) Curriculum, (7) Support Services, and (8) Institutional Marketing. Within this framework the following characteristics were described as being associated with institutional excellence:

• School Climate
  
  
  • Ecology (physical and material) Dimension: Effective institutions had attractive buildings and facilities; well-organized and attractively arranged classrooms and laboratories; adequate supplies, equipment, and resource materials; up-to-date equipment; and adequate or good facilities.
    
    
  • Milieu (People) Dimension: Effective institutions had good morale by teachers and students, a caring attitude toward students, camaraderie and respect within programs, low turnover of teachers and administrators, faculty input in hiring decisions, and faculty cooperation across departments.
    
    
  • Social System (School Organization) Dimension: Effective institutions had good communication among all personnel; trust and respect among faculty, support staff, and administrators; administrators knowledgeable about programs; collaborative decisionmaking; considerable input by teaching staff in hiring new teachers; and collegial teacher-to-teacher relationships.
    
    
  • Culture (Norms, Beliefs, and Values) Dimension: Effective institutions had overt focus on high standards, philosophy of importance of quality work, strong sense of mission, and unique traits or emphases that differentiated them from other similar institutions.
    
    
• Administration
  
  
  • Leadership Style: Effective institutions had administrations that were people-oriented and tended to delegate responsibilities to other staff.
    
    
  • High Expectations: Effective institutions had administrations with high-performance expectations for themselves and their staff.
    
    
  • Risk Taking: Effective institutions had administrations that were willing to take risks and start new ventures, were able to foresee trends and consequential events, and developed an atmosphere of creativity.
    
    
  • Flexibility: Effective institutions had administrations that supported new ideas and proposals and were willing to circumvent bureaucracies to solve problems.
    
    
  • Vision and Sense of Mission: Effective institutions had administrations that instilled a sense of vision and mission in students, staff, and communities.
    
    
• Teacher Attributes
  
  
  • Caring Attitude: Effective institutions had instructors who had genuine concern for each student, were patient and willing to create opportunities for students, and offered support beyond typically expected student-teacher relationships.
    
    
  • Acceptance of Student Diversity: Effective institutions had teachers who recognized that students differ in abilities, wants, and needs.
    
    
  • Positive Climate and High Expectations: Effective institutions had teachers who created an environment that was demanding and yet friendly and encouraging.
    
    
  • Teacher Competence and Professional Demeanor: Effective institutions had teachers who were adept in teaching methods and knowledge of subject matter and provided a positive professional work role model.
    
    
  • Stability of Faculty and Staff: Effective institutions had low teacher turnover.
    
    
• Student Attributes: Effective institutions had students with a strong sense of pride, positive feelings about being involved in programs, and high-performance expectations for themselves.
  
  
• Vocational Student Organizations: Effective institutions had active vocational student organizations, and students and faculty were actively involved in the organizations.
  
  
• Curriculum
  
  
  • Content of Programs/Advisory Committees: Effective institutions had curricula in some form of a competency-based framework, with content and staff training developed through advisory committees.
    
    
  • Faculty Ownership: Effective institutions had strong faculty ownership for the curriculum of the program through their major responsibility for developing, implementing, and updating it; and faculty took pride in course materials.
    
    
  • A Dual Curriculum: Effective institutions had curricula that addressed both current technical skills, effective personal development, and general problem-solving skills--a holistic education.
    
    
• Support Services: Effective institutions had well-developed support services for students, including general education programs, career counseling, and placement for students and clerical support for instructors.
  
  
• Institutional Marketing: Effective institutions had active marketing strategies focused on related industries and their geographic areas, faculty and advisory committees were involved in marketing, and the institutions were actively involved in their communities.

These themes were found to be consistent across institutions that were studied, both secondary and postsecondary. Wardlow et al. (1992) suggest that

there is likelihood that the most effective way to develop these characteristics in an institution is for that institution to participate in a mentoring process with an exemplary institution, in which participants in the aspiring institution gain a holistic view of the concept of institutional excellence. (p. 42)

Report of the Wingspread Group on Higher Education (1993)

This set of discussions and report focused on the question, "What does society need from higher education?" It was sponsored by four foundations--The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation; The Johnson Foundation, Inc.; Lilly Endowment, Inc.; and The Pew Charitable Trusts. The preface to the report of the prestigious group, chaired by former U.S. Secretary of Labor William Brock, states,

An increasingly open, global economy requires--absolutely requires--that all of us be better educated, more skilled, more adaptable, and more capable of working collaboratively. These economic considerations alone mean that we must change the ways we teach and learn. But, an increasingly diverse society, battered (and that is not too strong a term) by accelerating change, requires more than workplace competence. It also requires that we do a better job of passing on to the next generation a sense of the value of diversity and the critical importance of honesty, decency, integrity, compassion, and personal responsibility in a democratic society. Above all, we must get across the idea that the individual flourishes best in a genuine community to which the individual in turn has an obligation to contribute. (p. i)

The report notes that there is no single "silver bullet cure" for higher education in the United States; rather, improvements will come campus by campus with discussion and action requiring, "honest introspection and some very hard and even controversial new thinking about its roles and responsibilities, principles, and priorities" (p. ii).

In challenging higher education to raise its learning outcome standards, the report states, "A disturbing and dangerous mismatch exists between what American society needs of higher education and what it is receiving" (p. 1). Citing changes in the economy, demography, culture, technology, and globalization, the challenge for institutions of higher education is to prepare individuals to "learn their way through life" (p. 2). The response to the question of what does society need from higher education advocated in the report, particularly as relates to TYIs, is as follows:

• It needs stronger, more vital forms of community.
• It needs an informed and involved citizenry.
• It needs graduates able to assume leadership roles in American life.
• It needs a competent and adaptable workforce.
• It needs an affordable, cost-effective educational enterprise offering lifelong education.
• Above all, it needs a commitment to the American promise--the idea that all Americans have the opportunity to develop their talents to the fullest. (p. 2)

The report issues three major challenges to higher education institutions:

1. Taking values more seriously. Each institution should ask itself "what it proposes to do to assure that next year's entering students will graduate as individuals of character more sensitive to the needs of community, more competent in their ability to contribute to society, and more civil in their habits of thought, speech, and action" (p. 9). In responding, the Wingspread Group in Higher Education notes that institutions should consider two key lessons: (1) the values institutions act on and exemplify in their own behaviors are much more powerful in teaching than is simply proclaiming values, and (2) there is no substitute for direct experience on campuses and in the world beyond in teaching values. Campuses must model and teach the skills of community in very active ways.
   
   
2. Putting student learning first. Institutions, both college and university, "must for the foreseeable future focus overwhelmingly on what their students learn and achieve" (p. 13). The emphasis on clearer and higher learner outcomes is a central strategy advocated for all institutions in the report's statement that putting student learning first means (among other things) that institutions
   
   
   • Define exactly what their entering students need to succeed.
     
     
   • Start from where the students begin and help them achieve explicitly stated institutional standards for high achievement.
     
     
   • Tailor their programs--curriculum, schedules, support services, office hours--to meet the needs of students they admit, not the convenience of staff and faculty. (p. 13)

   In the Wingspread Group's words, "Putting learning at the heart of the academic enterprise will mean overhauling the conceptual, procedural, curricular, and other architecture of postsecondary education on most campuses" (p. 14). And the overall response may need to be different for different students depending on their ability to handle independence, support, and challenging standards.
   
   

3. Creating a nation of learners. The opening sentence discussing this challenge is, "We must redesign all of our learning systems to align our entire education enterprise with the personal, civic, and workplace needs of the 21st Century" (p. 19). That alignment will "demand that American education transform itself into a seamless system that can produce and support a nation of learners, providing access to educational services for learners as they need them, when they need them, and wherever they need them" (p. 19). They point out that the benchmarks for how to do this might come from any level of education (i.e., preschool to postgraduate) and from any economic sector (i.e., educational, private, government). The concluding statement is, "America needs a more collaborative, cost-effective and better-articulated way of responding to the lifelong learning needs of growing numbers of its citizens" (p. 21).

With respect to financing these changes, the report is straightforward and again challenging in stating,

higher education's best financial hope rests on helping itself by helping expand the nation's wealth, by providing the knowledgeable and highly skilled workforce that can enhance our productivity, revitalize our communities, and rebuild our sense of "we". . . . We also believe that institutions that defer change until new resources are available will find themselves waiting for a very long time. Financial salvation will begin on the campus, or it will probably not begin at all. (p. 25)

Toward a New Model for Thinking and Planning

The contribution of this report, authored by Banach and Lorenzo (1993) and published by Institute for Future Studies at Macomb Community College in Warren, Michigan, is in describing succinctly the radical changes emerging in America at the end of the 20th century as a backdrop for design and/or redesign of TYIs. These changes in context, generating both challenges and opportunities, are expected to dictate the need for bold new strategies in design and operation of TYIs. The key dimensions of the emerging context resulting from their environmental scanning are as follows:

• Demographics: Vital Human Statistics
  • Aging of society
  • The mosaic society (growing multiculturalism)
  • Population shifts (geographic mobility to urban areas)
• Economics: The Workplace, the Workforce, and the Exchange of Value
  • Economic transitions (to producing and delivering customized quality and variety)
  • Workforce transformations (causing disparity between workplace needs and workforce qualifications)
  • Polarization of wealth (the gap between the rich and poor is greater than at any time since records were kept)
• Political Climate: The Governing Context in which People and Organizations Pursue Their Objectives
  • Political reflections (increased attention to public opinion)
• Social Values and Lifestyles
  • Endangered youth (more children are at-risk)
  • Families and households (increased diversity of family forms)
  • Home base (home is becoming more of a "command center" for life)
  • Individual insulation (more self-centered, individuals isolating themselves)
  • The pampered consumer (expect maximum convenience, high quality, good service, and low price)
• Advances and Discoveries: Machines, Processes, and Techniques that Enhance or Replace the Human Element
  • Technology/information explosion (balancing technological development and practical applications)
• Education: Society's Efforts To Produce an Enlightened Citizenry
  • Privatization (stimulated by the forces of funding cutbacks, business seeking new ways to get the training they need, news media's highlighting inadequacies in public education, and advent of new educational technology)
• Public Opinion: Commonly Held Perceptions and Understandings
  • Public opinion paradox (public attitudes [i.e., seeking simple solutions to complex problems] are in direct contrast to what is needed)
• Organizational Contexts: How People Organize To Relate, Share, Achieve, and Compete
  • De-massification (responding to individual needs and wants)
  • Female forces (increased participation of women in the workforce)
  • Greater limits (more things are no longer possible or practical)
  • Organizational faddism (need to separate fads from foundations for progress)
  • Looking for leaders (fewer leaders seem to be available and the rewards are diminishing)
• World Affairs: Interactions of Groups and Nations that Affect the Marketplace or Political Climate
  • Globalization (resulting in new coalitions, economic entities, political alliances, and standards) (pp. 2-3)

In the context of these changes, Banach and Lorenzo (1993) recommend the following changes in the planning (design) process:

• The planning model needs to emphasize process over product.
• Organizations must develop a clear sense of purpose by understanding their relationship to the larger society.
• Organizations must devote greater effort to measuring their effectiveness and improving quality.
• Employee attitude must be monitored systematically and objectively.
• To more accurately determine the external forces triggering the need for change, organizations must strengthen their ability to scan the "local" and "global" environments.
• The environmental scan must be designed to reflect the expectations of multiple and diverse constituencies.
• The strategic planning process must include a means to monitor and influence public opinion.
• For mature organizations, the planning process must provide a basis for continuous improvement and continuous adaptability. (pp. 32-34)

Ten Public Policy Issues for Higher Education in 1994

At the time NDTYI was initiated, the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges (1994) published a list of the ten most significant public policy issues in higher education for 1994. The issues were developed by a group of higher education policy experts who gathered together in October 1993. The "front burner" issues, which provide a sense of the challenges facing governing boards, trustees, presidents, and chancellors responsible for higher education systems and campuses, including TYIs, were the following (not listed in priority order):

1. The Budget Squeeze: Competition for public funds will become more acute at the local, state, and federal levels, further squeezing funding for higher education.
   
   
2. Oversight and Accountability: Public agency oversight of institutions will grow, as will demands for greater institutional accountability regarding finances, administration, and academic affairs.
   
   
3. Access, Productivity, and Cost Containment: State and federal policymakers will intensify their pressure on institutions to increase productivity and provide access at reasonable cost.
   
   
4. Student-Aid Reforms: New student-aid legislation promises dramatic change. Direct loans, national service, and income-contingent loan repayments are on the way.
   
   
5. Changing Priorities for Research: Growth in federal funds for university research will slow, and priorities may continue to shift to research supporting economic development.
   
   
6. Race and Diversity: Institutions will be asked to do more to address societal problems, including issues concerning race and diversity.
   
   
7. The National Health-Care Debate: Every college and university will be affected by the outcome of the national debate on health-care reform.
   
   
8. Intercollegiate Athletics: Public scrutiny of intercollegiate athletics will continue amid ongoing controversies about cost containment, gender equity, and the effects of reforms.
   
   
9. Involvement in Public School Reform: Colleges and universities will be asked to do more to advance school reform.
   
   
10. Faculty Retirement: Elimination of mandatory retirement in 1994 could affect the finances and faculty demographics of many institutions. (p. 6)

Critical Issues Facing America's Community Colleges

This report, published by The Institute for Future Studies (1994) of Macomb Community College, describes the most important issues facing community colleges in 1994-1995, the time period at which NDTYI was just beginning. Presumably, a new design for the TYI will have to effectively deal with these issues if it is to be successful. The issues described in the report are as follows:

• Fundamental Uncertainty: Everything is changing, what we normally do might not work, and uncertainty of roles--all of these suggest the need for fundamental change.
  
  
• Different Directions: Colleges will become more dissimilar, mirroring more heterogeneous communities; what leads to progress will vary by campus; turbulence of change will lead to needed changes in direction; need for continuous experimentation and innovation; no common guideposts among colleges; and variation in focus on near and far geographic horizon.
  
  
• Resource Paradox: Colleges will have greater limits and broader possibilities at the same time, realization of difference between what society wants and can afford, need models of entrepreneurship and flexibility, being willing to focus, improvement by substitution, and comprehensiveness through collaboration among institutions.
  
  
• Two-Tier Trauma: Shortage of well-qualified professional staff, many faculty who should retire but do not, and implementing two-tier systems of rewards and responsibilities--full and part-time, old and new employees.
  
  
• Financial Futures: Demise of accessibility and affordability; little growth in state and federal funds; lack of willingness to increase local taxes for college operations; funding increases will be for very specific purposes; current funding models incapable of sustaining the system as it is; and new funding strategies will include workforce development initiatives funded by public and private sources, community development initiatives funded by communities, special purpose local revenue efforts, philanthropy and planned giving, grants, and entrepreneurship.
  
  
• Mission Mania: Expansion beyond capabilities; loss of public confidence; requests to be a partner by everyone in everything; fuzz college agendas; dilemma of increasing expectations and declining resources; need to mobilize various interest groups into a coherent whole; and balancing mission, marketplace, and college core values.
  
  
• Strategic Stalemate: Educational institutions are not sure what business wants, business is not sure what it wants from educational institutions, debate over whether or not educational institutions should emphasize general or specific skills, mismatch of workforce needs and existing educational programming, need to emphasize relationships between business and industry which match institutional strengths, future partnerships likely to be narrower and shorter-term, more synergistically and quickly developed curriculum projects, and need for educational institutions to make informed market choices.
  
  
• Documenting Results: Documentation of results will move from option to requirement, more assessment of perception of clients and public-at-large, benchmarks will be in the direction of world-class standards, need for educational institutions to become proactive advocates for evaluation of results as means to strengthen programs and extend base of support, need to use new information technologies to assist in assessment process, and assessment will be 3 x 4 matrix--measuring mission and organizational effectiveness and student outcomes and use of the assessment by academic decisionmakers, public policy officials, taxpayers, and students.
  
  
• Technology Avoidance: Faculty members are not enthusiastic about new technology; private companies are positioning to use technology to revolutionize the educational process in terms such as any time, any place, and any content; educational institutions are mostly using technology to do the same things faster rather that change what is being done; and resisting technology is holding back the inevitable.
  
  
• Research Readiness: Community college faculty are not producing or using research, real opportunity for them to make contribution on the teaching and learning process for postsecondary students, and way for faculty to renew themselves and advance the profession.
  
  
• The Shadow College: Typically this includes partnerships in community economic development such as short-term job training, contract education, and workforce development; often has entrepreneurial flair and quick response; some see as harmful to traditional mission of TYI and others see as best hope for future; should be strategy to evaluate; and progressive institutions are moving this form of operation to forefront of their educational efforts.
  
  
• Breaking Boundaries: Community colleges traditionally have a geographic focus; challenge to geographic boundary is coming from specialization, customization, globalization, and technology; and the traditional gentleperson's agreement between the community college and its local geographic community will need to be renegotiated.
  
  
• The Public Trust: Public interest and trust of the community college is slipping; public support usually results from a public perception of worthy purpose and quality performance; public is now assessing community colleges on the basis of cost, quality, and access; need for colleges to be clear about purposes, continuously improve performance, and focus on issues of public concern that match the institutions' capacity.
  
  
• Being Honest: Need for community colleges to reexamine their core mission to see if it needs to be changed (e.g., what are implications of really serving a community, really being student sensitive, really being accessible, really being up-to-date), need forums to deal with previous untouchable topics, and need to be honest about what colleges should not keep doing. (pp. 1-28)

A Framework for Fundamental Change in the Community College

This report was authored by Lorenzo and LeCroy (1994) and published by The Institute for Future Studies at Macomb Community College. The subtitle to the report is "Creating a Culture of Responsiveness." Lorenzo and LeCroy's operating assumption was that community colleges need to change in fundamental ways, meeting new needs more precisely and working from a more cohesive structure. The key assumptions they set forth to undergird their framework for fundamental change were as follows:

• The core need is for fundamental, rather than incremental, change.
  
  
• Times of fundamental change are characterized by a lack of fit between the problems pressing in on society and the solutions that its institutions have available to them.
  
  
• Amid such societal disequilibrium, new skills, talents, and language are required to establish better fit and a more coherent path.
  
  
• The overall goal for the community college is to create a culture of responsiveness that more clearly relates its comprehensive mission to these new societal circumstances. (p. 1)

Ten elements make up the proposed framework for change:

1. Think Holistically: With holistic thinking comes attention to connectedness, interdependence, systems, patterns of change, symbiotic networks, horizontal decisionmaking structures, seamless web of service, and turning competitors into collaborators. They suggest that college priorities be set through "an outside-in thinking process: (1) what's best for the community; (2) what's best for the college; (3) what's best for the unit; (4) what's best for the staff" (p. 10).
   
   
2. Streamline Governance: The challenge here was to pick up the pace of decisionmaking to better fit the needs of the Information Age. The mechanisms for increasing speed included flattening organizations, using information technologies, and establishing crossfunctional teams.
   
   
3. Redefine Roles and Redesign Work: The suggested approaches to redefining roles and redesigning work include (1) increased specialization (rather than expecting a person to do everything well) along four lines--designing curriculum, presenting information, managing the learning process, and assessing learning outcomes; (2) increased adaptability in operating structures and professional roles over time; (3) increased crossfunctionality across disciplines and functional areas; and (4) increased use of part-time faculty to increased speed of change.
   
   
4. Diversify Funding: The suggestion is for colleges to move to an offense position because "doing more with less" is not a viable long-term financial strategy. The new language of funding includes rigorous fiscal discipline, working smarter and leaner, outsourcing and privatization, entrepreneurial options, differential pricing, market niches, grantspersonship, fund development campaigns, collaboration, and long-term contracts.
   
   
5. Provide More Options: Here attention is directed toward providing more choice in terms of content, format, time, method, and setting. Practices likely to become more mainstream include home study, open entry/open exit, satellite learning centers, credit for experience, child care provisions, and customized offerings. The profile of colleges may take different directions as markets respond to these choices in different ways.
   
   
6. Assure Relevancy: Note was made that attention to relevancy may be the most painful change for community colleges. Being relevant will involve honesty and introspection; constant dialogue with customers and competitors; providing strong general and technical skills; questioning the value of associate degrees, the academic calendar, and faculty-search process; and real commitments to multicultural goals and lifelong learning.
   
   
7. Apply Technology: Technology is seen as a powerful "boundary breaker" for community colleges allowing the college to feasibly increase choices and horizons. Major hurdles include cost, training, and enhanced use for both administration and instruction.
   
   
8. Cultivate New Relationships: The centerpiece in building new relationships will be moving from a focus on "teaching" to one of "learning" and from "faculty-centered" to "student-centered." The commitment to cultivating new patterns of relationships, both internal and external, will be tested in the results of moving from line decision making to team decision making; from adversary to partner between management and labor; from faculty as information provider to consultant and coach; from autonomy and independence in services to avoiding duplication, waste, and gaps in services; from holding on to sharing power and resources across institutional borders; and from reluctance to enthusiasm in building relationships with K-12 public schools.
   
   
9. Changing Success Factors: Attention must shift from measuring inputs to measuring learning outcomes for all dimensions of the colleges' activities, traditional and new and emerging.
   
   
10. Facilitating Continuous Learning: The suggestion is for the college to demonstrate a continuing capacity to update and become stronger. The aim is to be a "learning organization" with constant and significant attention to professional development for all college staff. (pp. 10-21)

Starving the Solution

In this report published by the Miami-Dade Community College Foundation, McCabe (1995) addresses four major issues facing community colleges: "the demand for more highly educated workers is increasing and will continue to increase; more undereducated and underskilled workers are attempting to enter the workforce; there is an ever expanding dependent underclass; and in most cases community colleges are receiving less financial support" (p. 1). By not providing adequate resources to community colleges, legislators are "starving the most promising solution" to resolving the first three issues noted above. McCabe goes on to document the positive effects of community colleges on worker training, addressing the needs of the undereducated and underskilled, and developing economic independence. He concludes that community colleges are "undervalued, under-appreciated, and underfunded" (p. 10). Major symptoms of the underfunding include "a rapid increase in sections taught by part-time faculty, a decrease in support personnel, inadequate funds to stay current with technical equipment and library materials, and non-competitive salaries" (p. 11).

National Assessment of Vocational Education

The National Assessment of Vocational Education was mandated by the U.S. Congress as a part of the 1990 Perkins Act. The Office of Educational Research and Improvement in the U.S. Department of Education was assigned the task of conducting the assessment. Its purpose was to examine the outcomes of the 1990 Perkins Act and make recommendations concerning future reauthorization. A major component of the assessment was the examination of postsecondary vocational education, which largely occurs and is a significant purpose of TYIs.

On examining participation in postsecondary vocational education, the assessment resulted in the following conclusions (Boesel, Hudson, Deich, and Masten, 1994):

• Over two-thirds of postsecondary enrollments in sub-baccalaureate institutions are by students in vocational programs.
• Even with rising costs and the decreasing size of the traditional college-age student cohort, enrollments in postsecondary vocational education continue to increase (at about the same rate as for postsecondary academic programs).
• Postsecondary vocational programs serve a wider diversity of students in terms of ethnicity, disability, and disadvantages than other postsecondary programs.
• Enrollments in postsecondary vocational programs are increasing in occupational areas of job growth--thereby responding to the labor market.
• There is high demand for short-term programs reflected in proprietary institution enrollments, suggesting a conflicting need for longer education and immediate income (noted as one of the "greatest challenges of postsecondary vocational education" (p. 55).
• Postsecondary vocational students have low completion rates (similar to academic programs) (26-65% over a period of 2.5 years for full-time students), even though there are economic gains with program completion. From trend data, the conclusion is that students in sub-baccalaureate programs are leaving school without credentials at an increasing rate.

With these conclusions in mind, the assessment makes the following recommendations for reauthorization of the Perkins Act to improve postsecondary vocational education:

• . . . more closely target funds on institutions with large and growing concentrations of special population students (as a way to better serve all special populations of students).
• . . . funds should be targeted within institutions on programs in areas with growing job demand (as a way to increase vocational education's responsiveness and students' employment prospects).
• . . . emphasize the use of funds to substantially upgrade the development of vocational students' conceptual skills, especially at the secondary level (as a way to better prepare students for postsecondary education). (Boesel et al., 1994, pp. 54-55)

Important themes in the assessment's summary report (Boesel & McFarland, 1994) as it relates to postsecondary vocational education include (1) closer linkage of secondary and postsecondary programs (Tech Prep); (2) better integration of occupational and academic programs; (3) more accessible and responsive to a wide range of learners, particularly those with special needs; and (4) increased use of occupational and industrial standards as benchmarks for program quality and ensuring being up-to-date.

Transforming Higher Education

Nearing the completion of NDTYI, the Society for College and University Planning published the report entitled Transforming Higher Education: A Vision for Learning in the 21st Century (Dolence & Norris, 1995). The authors call for major transformation in higher education as society changes paradigms from the industrial age to the information age. In their vision, higher education must realign with the needs of its stakeholders, clients, customers, and beneficiaries. The transformation of higher education is addressed in four phases: (1) realign, (2) redesign, (3) redefine, and (4) re-engineer. Key concepts in the transformation from industrial age to information age include changing from . . .

• Teaching franchise to learning franchise.
• Provider-driven, set time for learning to individualized learning.
• Information infrastructure as support system to information infrastructure as the fundamental instrument of transformation.
• Individual technologies to technology synergies.
• Time out for education to just-in-time learning.
• Continuing education to perpetual learning.
• Separate learning systems to fused learning systems.
• Traditional courses, degrees, and academic calendars to unbundled learning experiences based on learner needs.
• Teaching and certification of mastery are combined, with learning and certification of mastery as related, yet separable issues.
• Front-end, lump-sum payment based on length of academic process to point-of-access payment for exchange of intellectual property based on value added.
• Collections of fragmented, narrow, and proprietary systems to seamless, integrated, comprehensive, and open systems.
• Bureaucratic systems to self-forming, self-correcting systems.
• Rigid, predesigned processes to families of transactions customized to the needs of learners, faculty, and staff.
• Technology push to learning vision pull. (p. 4)

In making the transformation, higher education will need to realign with the changing nature of information, knowledge, and scholarship; needs of individual learners; and the changing nature of work and learning. Redesigning higher education to integrate these new concepts will include changes such as creating barrier-free, perpetual learning; offering high-quality, flexible enabling services; reconceptualizing around essential outcomes; and pushing out organizational boundaries using technology. Redefining roles in higher education will include faculty playing a variety of roles: "researcher, synthesizer, mentor, evaluator and certifier of mastery, architect, and navigator" (p. 61). The transformation will involve re-engineering around performance measures such as the following:

• Access to global information networks
• Flexible schedule
• Lifelong learning support
• Personalized learning system available
• Simulation capability available (p. 77)

The authors of this report are clear in their admonition about the choice available to higher education institutions: "Accept the risks of pursuing the transformation of higher education to an Information Age model, or the certainty of stagnation and decline as Industrial Age colleges and universities fall further and further from favor" (p. 94).

The Community College Story

A well-known leader in the field of community colleges, George B. Vaughan (1995), was commissioned by the American Community College Association to prepare this concise description of the community college movement in the United States. Since the community colleges represent the most numerous form of public, TYIs, the report was included in developing design criteria for NDTYI. Vaughan reports that there were 1,472 public community colleges, technical colleges, two-year branch colleges, and independent junior colleges in the United States in 1990, and they enrolled more than 5.7 million students in credit courses. This number amounts to about 38% of all students enrolled in community colleges and four-year institutions (p. 10).

Vaughan summarizes the mission of community colleges as a series of precepts or basic commitments:

• A commitment to serving all segments of society through an open-access admissions policy that offers equal and fair treatment to all students;
• A commitment to a comprehensive educational program;
• A commitment to serving its community as a community-based institution of higher education;
• A commitment to teaching; and
• A commitment to lifelong learning. (p. 3)

The community college's mission is usually achieved through the following traditional categories of programs, activities, and services:

• College Transfer Programs: Preparation for transfer to a four-year, baccalaureate institution.
• Occupational-Technical Programs: Preparation to directly enter the world of work.
• Developmental Education: Preparation to enter college courses.
• Community Service: Continuing education for employment and personal reasons.
• Support Services: Services to ensure success in college (e.g., libraries, learning resource centers, academic and employment advising, financial aid).

With regard to the description of community college students, Vaughan contrasts traditional four-year institutions with "student-as-citizen" to the community college, where the norm is "citizen-as-student." The citizen-as-student is described as, "concerned with paying taxes, working full-time, supporting a family, paying a mortgage, and with other responsibilities associated with the everyday role of a full-time citizen" (p. 17). The change in role has many implications for student needs in terms of how, when, and by whom courses are taught.

In terms of funding, community colleges are primarily supported by local and state taxes. According to Vaughan, "On average, nationally, community colleges receive approximately 50 percent of their funds from state taxes, 21 percent from local government, 20 percent from tuition and fees, 4 percent from the federal government and 5 percent from other sources" (p. 22).

Summary

In view of the positions, findings, and recommendations of the reports described above and intensive deliberations in the NDTYI Work Group and National Design Group, a set of key changes in the context of higher education was selected for attention in NDTYI:

• From Industrial Age to Knowledge Age: The technological focus has moved from the Industrial Age to the Information Age, and now to the Knowledge Age.
  
  
• From National Society to Global Society: The social and economic horizon has extended from a local and state perspective to a national perspective, and now to an international perspective.
  
  
• From Minority/Majority to Diversity: The cultural lens has shifted from a majority dominance, to minority/majority considerations, and now to the recognition and valuing of cultural diversity.
  
  
• From Waves of Change to Turbulent Change: The approach to dealing with change has altered from linear thinking to catching and riding waves of change, and now to coping with the "white water" of turbulent change.
  
  
• From Resource Growth to Resource Reduction: The resource assumptions have converted from growth with added resources, to renewal through resource reallocation, and now to redesigning with resource reduction.
  
  
• From Some Wanting Postsecondary Education to All Wanting Postsecondary Education: The demand curve has veered from a few wanting postsecondary education to some wanting postsecondary education, and now to all wanting postsecondary education as a means to a good life and a good society.

These are the changes that challenge new designs for the TYI. They form the basis for the design criteria that were used to guide the development of NDTYI.

The Design Criteria

Given the design assumptions and the changing context of the TYI in the United States, the work of the NDTYI Work Group and the National Design Group, in combination and interaction, resulted in a set of design criteria to guide and monitor the next elements in the design process. This section of the report will give an overview of the design criteria followed by a more detailed treatment of each criterion in terms of the questions it suggests for each element in the design process.

Overview of Design Criteria

By way of overview, the criteria for the exemplary design of a 21st century TYI were formulated as follows:

• Imaginative (responding to a context in which the old ways of operating are no longer working): Being imaginative means breaking traditional boundaries, moving in different directions for different institutions (e.g., designing to be different depending on the situation), practicing entrepreneurship (e.g., searching, exploring, risking, investing, and incorporating), and growing/improving by substitutions (e.g., shifting resources, new for old). Imagination involves exploration of the possible.
  
  
• Directional (responding to a context where many institutions lack a relevant strategic focus): The process of mission development as it relates to learners and community, social and economic agenda, becoming part of our social fabric.
  
  
• Responsive (responding to a context of changing customer needs and expectations): Being attentive to the diversity of learners (e.g., culture, gender, age), access (e.g., in terms of cost, distance, time, learning readiness), lifelong learning, technological change (e.g., technology as subject matter, learning delivery, and change agent), market competitions, change agent role (e.g., proactive, setting the pace), flexibility (e.g., continuous quality improvement approach, a learning community), pace of response, and customer service.
  
  
• Collaborative (responding to a context of no longer being able to get the job done alone): Being cooperative in terms of curricular integration (e.g., academic/general and vocational/technical/occupational/professional), institutional articulation (e.g., secondary/postsecondary, two-year/four-year), partnerships (e.g., with families, employers, community agencies, other schools/colleges/universities), brokering of services (e.g., linking of needs and services provided by others, taking shared responsibility), and supporting a seamless learning system.
  
  
• Accountable (responding to a context where the value of the institution is being questioned): Being responsible for learning outcomes, quality assurance to stakeholders, continuous quality improvement, and productivity.
  
  
• Resourced (responding to a context of lack of funds): Ensuring that there are adequate financial resources to provide the desired characteristic for each element of the design. Being active in increasing resources (e.g., short and long term), cost containment, increasing efficiency, recognizing what is done as a matter of choice (e.g., higher education is discretionary), equity, and fairness in who pays and receives benefits.

On Being Attentive to the Design Criteria

The following section of the report focuses more in-depth on each of the design criteria in terms of what the design criteria mean in action (e.g., on being imaginative, on being directional). For each of the design criteria, attention is given to a brief description of the concept underlying the criterion and then raising questions relating the criterion to each of the elements in the design process (e.g., signature, outcomes, process, organization).

On Being Imaginative

Imagination involves exploration of the possible. It questions the beliefs and myths that underlie current activities and organizations. Imagination creates metaphors that help people visualize productive futures. And, it facilitates the design of models of systems and behaviors that give creative shape to the future. Being imaginative raises the following questions for each design element:

Signature

• Does the signature express ideas or beliefs that are likely to capture the interest of stakeholders?

Outcomes

• Are outcomes integrated across the entire range of the institutional mission (e.g., academic, personal, and social)?

Process

• Is there a dynamic teaching-learning model that provides alternative experiences for students?

Organization

• Does the design provide the systems and structures necessary for a learning organization?

Partnerships

• Does the design make use of community resources in such a way as to ensure the future vitality of the organization?

Staff and Staff Development

• Does the model and its supporting systems provide opportunities for meaningful roles and the creative input of staff?

Environment

• Does the design provide for continued use of new technology--both in support of the learning and as an object of instruction?
• Are there explicit links between the design and the surrounding environment so as to foster mutual adaptation?

Finance

• Does the design include plans for continued resource inputs commensurate with learning outcomes?

Celebration

• Is there a provision for symbolism and celebration in the design?
• How is being imaginative continuously celebrated?

On Being Directional

The metaphor for direction of the TYI is a camera with the ability to change the lenses of its organizational procedures to focus the resources of the institution and diffuse information to make impressions--wide angle to get a broader view of the context and environment, telescope for the future or to view other organizations, snapshot to take stock, and video to function in an ongoing environment. Each member of the learning community should have the same camera capacity. Being directive raises the following questions for each of the design elements:

Signature

• Does the signature direct attention and energies of the stakeholders in support of the mission?

Outcomes

• Do the outcomes clearly suggest how they are to be attained and how they lead to opportunity?

Process

• Does the learning process provide multiple options directed by the student?

Organization

• Is the organizational structure flexible and responsive?
• Does the way of organizing serve to link and connect the student to the institution and to the community?
• Does the direction come from shared decisionmaking with faculty, students, and other members of the community?

Partnerships

• Do the partnerships serve to move the institution in a consistent direction?

Staff and Staff Development

• Is the direction seen in staff actions as facilitators, conveners, instructors, tutors, and advisors?
• What is the role of the institution's staff in setting institutional direction?

Environment

• Does technology facilitate the connections, linkages, and direction of the institution?
• Is the direction evident in the learning places?

Finance

• Is the design an investment returned through employability?
• Does the learning experience lead to economic viability-employment?

Celebration

• Is celebration a means to gather, to recognize, and to provide the dynamic for future directions?
• Does the direction of an institution create an environment of hospitality and being welcome?

On Being Responsive

The amount of information is doubling currently at about a rate of every 18-24 months. By the year 2010, that rate may be every three to five days (Noam, 1995). With extraordinary growth in information, institutions of higher education need to be able to respond quickly. How does an institution of higher education position itself to be responsive in the 21st century, moving from the Information Age into the Knowledge Age? Being responsive raises the following questions for each element in the design process:

Signature

• Is the learning signature and mission "timeless"?

Outcomes

• Is the institution responsive to the changing and diverse student body?
• Will the face of employment change in the 21st century, and how will it affect the types of outcomes for which employers and students are looking?
• Is the institution responsive to curiosity?

Process

• How will technology be used in the learning process?
• How do institutions of higher education respond to the increasing diversity of students and learning styles?

Organization

• Is the organization going to be proactive or reactive in its response to changes? Does a loosely coupled system allow for more responsiveness?
• What is the role of accreditation agencies in ensuring responsiveness?

Partnerships

• Will the institution be open to new partnerships in the 21st century?
• Is the institution responsive to the public?

Staff and Staff Development

• Is the staff creative, flexible, and excited about change?
• What is the structure to support the staff?

Environment

• How do institutions of higher education keep up with quickly changing and advancing technologies?
• Is the institution modeling openness, creativeness, and characteristics of responsiveness?

Finance

• How do institutions of higher education contain costs, yet remain responsive to future projections and technologies?

Celebration

• Are celebrations reflective of change in the 21st century?
• Are the celebrations inclusive of all students?
• Are there celebrations for student retention as well as completion?
• What are the incentives for staff to be highly responsive?

On Being Collaborative

Collaboration is a dynamic, mutually beneficial, and well-defined relationship entered into by two or more individuals or organizations to achieve common goals. The relationship includes a commitment to a definition of mutual relationships and goals, a jointly developed structure and shared responsibility, mutual authority and accountability for success, and sharing of resources and rewards. Collaboration results in easier, faster, and more coherent access to services and benefits and in greater effects on systems. Working together is not a substitute for adequate resources, although the synergistic efforts of the collaborating partners often result in creative ways to overcome obstacles. Being collaborative raises the following questions about each element of the design process:

Signature

• Does the signature grow out of shared and understood goals?
• Does the signature convey a spirit of collaboration?

Outcomes

• Do the outcomes reflect the ideas, knowledge, and judgment of collaborating partners?
• Are the outcomes clearly understood and supported by the collaborators?

Process

• Is the process supportive of collaborative goals and outcomes?
• Does the process model and foster ongoing collaborative work?

Organization

• Does the organization support collaborative efforts?

Partnerships

• Do existing partnerships encourage the formation of new collaborative partners?

Staff and Staff Development

• Are staff provided with training in working collaboratively?
• Do the staff utilize and model good, collaborative practice?

Environment

• Does the technology support and enhance collaborative efforts?
• Is the environment conducive to collaboration?

Finance

• Are the time and money costs of collaboration understood and accounted for?

Celebration

• Do celebrations reflect shared as well as differing interests?
• Do celebrations recognize and reward collaboration?

On Being Accountable

Accountability involves meeting responsibilities and includes nuances that range from the explicit, but usually quite narrow, demands for specific accomplishments of goals or objectives as might be expressed in a planning document or contract to the implicit, diffuse, and usually unarticulated expectations that have their foundations in cultural traditions and mores that truly determine parameters for institutions and individuals. A metaphor that reflects the range of meanings for accountability may then be that of the iceberg with a tip visible on the surface that ostensibly can be approached in a straightforward manner, and a great hulk of the hidden, treacherous mass underlying the seemingly benign portion. Many a ship has been wrecked because it has not paid attention to or has misjudged the degree of danger lurking beneath the waves. Likewise, being accountable demands attention not only to explicit, but also to implicit expectations. Being accountable raises the following questions for each element of the design process:

Signature

• How do images or symbols used to portray the nature and purpose of the organization communicate the implicit, as well as the explicit, commitments?
• What can be done to assure that these symbols embody the values that are espoused?

Outcomes

• What outcomes are recognized, valued, and celebrated?
• Are all stakeholders considered equally important when allocating resources toward achievement of outcomes?

Process

• Does the learning process incorporate means by which the full range of accountabilities can be addressed?
• Are the processes that are in place for all participants, regardless of their learner roles, congruent with the aims and values of the institution--taking into account its status as a public or private entity?

Organization

• What are the parameters for the institution?
• Do the parameters encompass the notion of "community"?
• Are the parameters permeable?

Partnerships

• How do partnerships evolve?
• Are all the criteria used in selecting partners made explicit?
• What commitments are made to partners (e.g., what determines the duration and scope of a partnership)?
• Who decides when a partnership should be initiated or dissolved?
• What is the balance of power within the arrangement?

Staff and Staff Development

• What messages do staff receive about accountability?
• Does the institution provide opportunities for staff to contribute their ideas and pursue their own interpretations of accountability?
• Are all staff "accountable" to each other as well as to the mission of the institution?
• Are processes in place that cause power and authority to be shared throughout the organization?
• Are staff selected in a manner that reflects accountability in the broad sense?

Environment

• Is technology used appropriately as a means, rather than as an end?
• Are decisions concerning technology made in a manner that takes into consideration the ends and purposes of the institution?
• Are plans for the use of technology made for a relatively long-term basis, and are support mechanisms available?
• Are persons learning to use technology provided with the necessary time and training?
• Are the limitations of technology discussed?
• Are alternative technologies made available that accommodate the various learning and thinking styles of the users?
• Is the environment structured appropriately for maximum accommodation of learners and for learners who are in the roles of facilitating the learning of others?
• What concomitant messages pervade the environment?
• Would the environment meet the standards of the most user-friendly setting in the community?

Finance

• Does the institution use its resources wisely and in the most cost-effective manner?
• Are all persons involved accountable for resources in the same way and to the same degree?
• How are resources allocated?

Celebration

• What events, achievements, or conditions warrant a celebration?
• Are contributions of all participants celebrated?
• What messages are conveyed by the celebrations?

On Being Resourced

Being resourced means ensuring that there are adequate financial resources to provide the desired characteristic for each element of the design of a TYI. It means that lack of funding is never the reason for not doing what is in the best interest of providing a quality learning experience. Financial resources are soon converted into the people, learning materials, equipment, and settings needed to create the desired learning experience. Resourcing has short- and long-term considerations and a revenue and cost side to the ledger. Being responsive demands a balance of prudence and risk taking, making the best of what is in place and having an entrepreneurial spirit to develop new ventures, making wise use and the best case for existing financial sources, continually seeking new sources, honing the efficiency of present systems and ways of doing business, and asking tough questions regarding entirely new approaches. Being resourced raises the following questions about each element of the design process:

Signature

• What level of resources is needed to deliver on the promise of the institutional signature?

Outcomes

• How can the outcomes be translated into added economic value?

Process

• How can the learning process be kept both most effective and efficient?

Organization

• How can the institution be organized to make the best use of resources on the campus and in the community?

Partnerships

• What partnerships will ensure an adequate flow of resources?

Staff and Staff Development

• How might staffing be approached to make best use of resources and create additional resources for the future?

Environment

• What new innovations and creative solutions to the learning environment would result in releasing resources for other uses or making multiple use of existing community resources?

Finance

• What level of resources would be needed to create conditions where the expected response to a resource request to improve the learning experience was "yes"?

Celebration

• How does an institution celebrate efficiency without making it the overriding concern?

Summary

Development of an appropriate set of design criteria for NDTYI was a significant element in the design process. These criteria guided the response to design specifications and the selection or development of exemplary new designs for the remaining elements of the design process. The resulting design criteria are grounded in a close examination of the context of TYIs in the United States--their problems, assets, opportunities, and aspirations. The selected criteria are that new designs be imaginative, directional, responsive, collaborative, accountable, and resourced. In the view of the NDTYI staff, if new institutional designs are responsive to these criteria in all of the criteria's dimensionality, the resulting institutions will have good assurance of being successful (perceived as doing a good job), valued (perceived as doing a job very worth doing), and used (perceived as a good investment by individuals and community).

[*] This section was written by George Copa.