The innovations we uncovered form a continuum--from heroic independent efforts on the part of individual faculty which influence the outcomes of only a few students, to institution-wide efforts that are broader in the range of skills they incorporate or the numbers of students they benefit. Even though the implementation process differs at each end of the spectrum, there is a shared stimulus: these reforms were largely generated by concern about the quality of student outcomes, rather than a more limited concern about career preparation. Both external and internal factors led to self-examination; in some cases, accreditation boards or employee advisory committees recommended stronger academic student outcomes, while in other colleges a leading administrator identified a need for program improvement. Some colleges received large grants to develop effective models of curricular innovation; other colleges funded very small projects out of general revenues.
In a few cases, state regulations have required the implementation of certain reforms. In these cases, however, community colleges have generally met but have not exceeded those requirements, or have implemented only minimal reforms.[20] Similarly, the Carl Perkins Amendments of 1990 have required that community colleges spend their federal funding for vocational education in programs "that integrate academic and vocational education . . . so that students achieve both academic and occupational competencies." However, federal guidelines are absent,[21] and in practice these requirements have been met either with minimal compliance or, quite often, largely ignored. Perkins funds have often been used for equipment purchases and other forms of updating vocational programs, and neither the state nor federal governments have bothered to see whether local colleges are complying with the spirit of this requirement. Of course, many colleges and technical institutes have inaugurated changes (both minimal and ambitious) on their own, and use state and federal funding for their innovations. Even so, the lack of a statewide or national consensus on the elements and strategies for comprehensive career preparation has left local colleges with little direction for their efforts.
Community colleges and technical institutes have taken several approaches in their efforts to develop more comprehensive workforce development programs. A minority of colleges have created a degree of unity between liberal arts and occupational divisions by locating offices near one another, or by forming joint councils (sometimes including counseling staff). Fifteen percent of the colleges in our survey have assigned both academic and occupational departments to a single Dean. Joint social activities also encourage informal relationships between faculty. "There is a free lunch" was the title of one such activity, in which meals in the campus dining hall were free to occupational instructors who made a lunch date with an academic counterpart (Orange Coast Community College in California). [N] The hope of these collegial processes is that contact among faculty members--never very common, at least in most community colleges--will lead to collaboration as faculty come to discover their mutual interests.
Occasionally, colleges incorporate formal mechanisms to foster cross-campus integration and innovation. To encourage holistic thinking about the entire college, at Macomb Community College in Michigan, administrators "manage" one of the college's missions, with responsibility to be a "resident expert" in streamlining governance and decisionmaking and to assure relevance across departments and disciplines. [II-43] "Constant, purposeful innovations and improvement" is a quality indicator of "Institutional Effectiveness" for the 1995-1996 school term at Salt Lake City Community College. [N]
More systematic and institutional changes have invariably been led by dynamic educational administrators, particularly those who have defined student outcomes in terms of competency rather than course completion. In these cases, an instructional leader, usually the vice president or dean of instruction or academic affairs, committed himself or herself to reform, gained information about alternative approaches through the college's professional development or self-study, identified a template for implementation, and then ceded authority for implementing these reforms to faculty. The particulars of the reform vision varied, of course: some of these instructional leaders preferred the infusion of academic activities into occupational courses, while others emphasized a substantial redesign of general education, or linking career and liberal arts courses. However, without a centrally designed pattern for reform and support from the highest levels of administration, colleges have floundered--or the efforts of individual faculty have remained idiosyncratic and isolated.
To move into implementation, instructional leaders have generally passed authority to one or more faculty leaders, described by one administrator as "brave, courageous, and bold." In New Hampshire, these faculty leaders were called "System Fellows" and were appointed by the Commissioner of Higher Education. [II-44] At other colleges, department chairs or volunteer faculty were charged with formalizing a rationale and a planning process. A few colleges have provided mini-grants for faculty members to generate ideas for revised courses and programs; for example, Cape Cod Community College in Massachusetts granted $500 to faculty duos who submitted competitive proposals for infusing academic, work-related, or SCANS activities into courses. [N] Later in the process, colleges have often provided stipends or release time for the development of courses themselves. Like all implementation, the process of exploring possibilities and methods is often chaotic: colleges often describe this period as "fumbling through," "groping along," "hammering out," "a lot of little pieces coming together," during which faculty teams map out goals and methods appropriate for local conditions. Colleges reported a "halo effect" for all new conceptions until teams had enough information to sort out ideas, and complained that identifying experts for technical assistance was a problem for early innovators. Particular types of support from administrative leaders become critical at this stage--their presence during planning sessions, appropriate professional development to flesh out alternative models, and joint planning time for the faculty team--to overcome what one dean cited as an educator's dilemma: "I really would like to do this differently, but I don't have time or an idea of how to design something new." [N]
Two contrasting approaches characterize these implementation practices. One approach can be described as a collegial approach, in which change is inclusive, fostered for all faculty at a rate which they find comfortable. Conversely, Salt Lake Community College in Utah and Washtenaw Community College in Michigan [N] adopted an entrepreneurial approach, in which faculty willing to meet specified standards in course competencies were granted approval for their course to meet requirements for graduation. In both approaches, quality control rested with a faculty committee, through review of course outlines, assessment methods, or student work samples.
Any change is accompanied by some risk, and college leaders can foster a culture of support for innovation. In developing new courses and teaching approaches for the Bridge Program at Indian River Community College in Florida, the Physics instructors commended administrators "for creating a supportive atmosphere in which I felt secure enough to take risks and make mistakes without fear of criticism or failure." [N] Usually, of course, such reforms are initially undertaken as pilot projects with only a few courses or instructors involved. The speed with which a pilot project is open to students varies greatly. Some colleges have arranged a four-year implementation period, while others have planned a one semester "roll out." Illinois Central allowed eight months for piloting a dozen linked courses [N]; Mississippi Gulf Coast [N] asked each faculty leader to design two integrated activities per semester; and teams at Fayetteville in North Carolina [N] jointly designed fifty activity guides during one school term.
Nearly every college adopting substantial innovations has planned for natural diffusion in which the reform effort spreads across the campus as other faculty become excited and elect to participate, since it is so difficult to force faculty to participate. Wausheka County Technical College in Wisconsin formalized diffusion by using faculty "advocates" to make presentations at department meetings and to work individually with instructors wanting to infuse core competencies into courses. Administrative leaders continued to provide leadership, as one replied, "accepting incremental change but keeping the heat on," while faculty teams planned and conducted reforms.
Regardless of the approach used, faculty and administrators report a change in the instructional culture of the college as a result of redefining student outcomes. Statements that the teams are "learning as we go along" and "learning from these experiments" reflect the pioneering nature of these achievements--as every college has cautioned us, the initial reforms are not final results, but, rather, ongoing negotiations in program design. Over time, such efforts may be able to change the culture of a community college toward one in which outcomes are taken more seriously, in which a variety of work-related competencies are explicitly provided, in which faculty collaborate in the development of programs and courses, and in which the vision of the community college as a "teaching college" motivates all faculty and administrators.
[20] In two exceptions, colleges joined state guidelines with an established local initiative to improve student learning outcomes.
[21] While the 1990 and 1994 Perkins Acts prescribe the integration of academic and vocational education, federal definitions and guidelines have not been forthcoming. In practice, federal guidelines carry little weight because federal funds in postsecondary institutions is so small, accounting for less than 4% of local budgets for occupational education (Grubb & Stern, 1989).