Yesterday, both The Chronicle and Inside Higher Ed reported on a new study out entitled "Why Have College Completion Rates Declined? An Analysis of Changing Student Preparation and Collegiate Resources" which, as the Chronicle headline indicates, argues that "Dwindling Resources for Instruction, More Than Weak Students, Explain Poor Graduation Rates, Scholars Say."  But it was over at IHE where the real "rumble in the comments" occurred with a veritable plethora of higher ed policy wonks exchanging rhetorical blows-I got tired just reading them. 

The arguments ran the gamut from attacks on the methodology to those defensive about community colleges to accusations of improper research protocol and on and on.  But finally, Jane Wellman of the Delta Cost Project, weighed in with the point that I kept thinking (and that she had, in fact, made in the Chronicle article):

The discussion seems to be missing one of the more interesting findings, which is about the connection between reduced spending on instruction in 'less selective' public four-year institutions [and community colleges I assume] with declining (or, assuming Cliff is not wrong) stagnant graduation rates. Since most studies show almost no relation between spending and any measure of outcomes, this is a big deal.

Higher ed researcher Sara Goldrick-Rab quickly noted that "Jane is right" and then takes the time to write a much more thoughtful response over at CHE's Brainstorm where she makes this point.

As a nation we relied on community colleges to absorb much of the growth in enrollment. To what end? While some will read this paper and decide that community colleges have screwed up, that's a flat-wrong and oversimplified conclusion. It's also not one intended by the authors. As table 4 in the paper shows, we treat community-college students like they are cheap to educate. Median per-student expenditures during the 1990s were just $2,610 at community colleges, having declined 14 percent since the 1970s. In comparison, spending at public four-year "non-top 50" colleges was 52 percent higher.

After all the dust settles, the point here is that we are currently holding up community colleges as vital to our higher ed system-to our country for that matter (and, as someone who taught at one for seven years, I am not disagreeing).  But if, at the same time, we are seeking greater student persistence and attainment, we should look long and hard at the essential components of that system --the staff and structure our community colleges-and how we fund it. This is all the more important given the amazing diversity of students community colleges are now being asked to take in and serve. Can we put our money where our mouth is?

We noted in our recent report, American Academic: The State of the Higher Education Workforce, that part of the explanation as to why public 4-year comprehensive institutions showed a significant growth in part-time faculty was that 43 community colleges were included in that category since they were now offering four-year degrees.  Is this a sign that ultimately four-year institutions-or at least more programs within them-are going to be staffed and structured more and more like they are in community colleges?  It sure seems that we are moving in that direction.

The point isn't that community colleges shouldn't be valued and given more recognition for what they do as part of our system.  The point is that we should be careful not be come enamored with the idea that they are valuable because they do education on a smaller budget. That is false and patronizing.  If policy is  to drive more program, more students and more responsibility for the success of our higher education system into the two-year sector, policy must focus, too, on how to target the investment to help them succeed.  As Goldrick-Rab points out, "[y]ou simply cannot install a massive policy change without proper supports, no matter how good the intentions are."  Indeed.