The Strategic Challenges project considered external issues that could have a substantial impact on the college’s operations. Several common themes emerged from discussions with faculty, students, staff, community members, and the Board of Trustees, including the potential impact of funding shifts; new rules, goals, and roles; new competition, the changing realities of our students’ lives; demographic and community factors; organizational climate and communications issues; and the ever-accelerating pace of change.t sets out the college’s priorities, clarifies its mission and values, and articulates specific and measurable goals in the context of those challenges.

Thank you to everyone who has provided input into this process. Your contributions have been invaluable and your insights are very much appreciated.We now move into a discussion of the Strategic Planning project and are currently asking the campus community to identify preliminary issues and ideas that can be used in the development of a comprehensive plan that will guide the College for the next several years.

Opportunities to provide input into the plan include several informal Friday meetings this month and next, including January 18 and 25 and February 1, 8, and 15. Lunch will be provided at each of these meetings beginning at 11:30 a.m. with discussion running from 12:15 to 2:00 p.m.

If you would like to attend one of these meetings, please RSVP to Margo Whalen at whalenm2@lcc.edu by the Monday before the meeting you wish to attend.

Your input is a vital part of our strategic planning process. We want to hear your suggestions on how we can serve you and our community in the future.

Learn Forward LCC staff forum – Friday, May 18 from 10:00 -12:00 pm in HHS 005, 006, 025, 026
We look forward to hearing your comments and ideas. With your help, we can continue to ensure that Lansing Community College meets the needs and exceeds the expectations of its community.

Emerging Trends

Since 1994, over 65% of net new jobs created in the US have been at small companies and not at the traditional large (i.e. Fortune 500) employers.  The Office of Advocacy defines a small business as an independent business having fewer than 500 employees.  This trend is evident in our region, as approximately 90% of the customers that the Business and Community Institute (BCI) at Lansing Community College (LCC) serves fall within this definition.

Liquid Web is an outstanding example of an entrepreneurial success story, and reflects this major trend in the US employment picture.  Liquid Web is a Lansing company founded in 1997 with local roots tracing back to Holt High School. Starting from a small office in Holt, the company has grown to three large datacenters. While the leadership at Liquid Web identified a large market need and built a strong business model to serve that need, the company’s fast growth requires an ever-growing demand for workers with technical skills.

As high growth companies, our regional customers rely upon us to continue to deliver fast, flexible and customized services.

Strategic Challenge

A strategic challenge faced by today’s community college, as it relates to economic development, rests squarely on its ability to evolve, and remain relevant to our business community and strategic partners. Our ability to create and deliver services designed to meet the changing needs of our business community is critical to our unique role in economic development.

In order to stimulate real change, we believe the business and community college cultures must be congruent in relation to demand and supply – each needs to understand the other’s particular challenges.

“Planning for the future does not, however, mean that we ignore the present. Times have been tough in Michigan. We have failed to think strategically about the relationship between economic development and talent. Job creators are finding it challenging to grow and develop without the right talent and job seekers are struggling to connect with the right opportunities that leverage their skills. We must commit to addressing these challenges.”   – Governor Rick Snyder

The Lansing Community College Position

Lansing Community College has taken on a significant role, and ambitious position in support of our regional economy.  College leadership deserves much credit for supporting strategic, diverse and important initiatives to stimulate our economy – while institutions across the country have taken less assertive positions in support of regional economic development initiatives.

LCC’s Alignment with Emerging State Initiatives

Because vibrant communities have healthy and growing regional businesses providing job and income growth, the State of Michigan has adopted a strategy of Economic Gardening.  The basic concept is to focus the state’s economic development efforts on growing existing in-state businesses and jobs, instead of offering tax incentives, etc. to attract out-of-state businesses to bring jobs to Michigan.  This economic gardening model is not unique to Michigan; it is being deployed in many parts of the US where government has realized that “growing your own” jobs makes more sense than trying to lure a major employer to set up shop in your state.

So how does a community college contribute to economic development in congruence with the economic gardening model?   The future success of the US economy will be determined in great part by its ability to support innovation and talent development. Colleges are natural idea factories with their intellectual capital of faculty, staff, and students.  In addition, colleges have untapped relationship capital via their ability to convene leaders and decisions makers in the community.  Economic development benefits from collaboration amongst various stakeholders; central amongst them is the role of the community college.  By investing in programs that support regional businesses, LCC in effect, creates demand for both credit and noncredit education.  Companies will start-up, grow, create and retain jobs, and upgrade skills for their employees. 

“Not only is Michigan’s history rooted in entrepreneurship but its future is tied to it. I have charged MEDC with facilitating training in conjunction with regional Small Business Technology Development Centers.” – Governor Rick Snyder

Amongst other business development initiatives, the regional office of the MI-Small Business & Technology Development Center (SBTDC) at LCC has deep relationships in the local business community through its consulting, training, and market research services. SBTDC annually works with over 2,000 local businesses or prospective entrepreneurs leading to hundreds of jobs created and millions of dollars in new capital formation in our local community.

Goldman Sachs’ 10,000 Small Businesses is an investment to help small businesses create jobs and economic opportunity by providing greater access to business education, financial capital, and business support services. The program is based on the broadly held view of leading experts, that greater access to this combination of education, capital and support services best addresses barriers to growth.

“The Goldman Sachs 10,000 Small Businesses initiative has, in a very short time, infused a dynamic energy that engages community colleges and small business owners in key communities around the nation. These innovative models will ultimately benefit both communities and the nation.”   — Dr. Walter G. Bumphus, president and CEO of the American Association of Community Colleges

The Business & Community Institute (BCI) focuses on talent development for our regional employers.  It is the BCI’s goal to increase the productivity of our regional workforce and boost their competitive advantage both domestically and internationally.  With increased productivity comes long-term sustained profitability, and regional job creation and retention.  Last year, the BCI delivered hundreds of professional development programs to employers and trained almost 3000 members of our regional workforce.

Economic Development Strategic Partnerships

Lansing Community College understands that relationships with the business community and economic development stakeholders are essential, to maintaining our understanding of the marketplace and its value-drivers.  To this end, we are active in our collaboration with for-profit and non-profit organizations that affect our ability to serve the business community. Our continued effort to partner across national, state and local levels is critical to maintaining LCC’s relevance in the marketplace.

Strong partnerships include, but are not limited to:

National – US Small Bus. Admin, US Dept. of Ag., US Dept. of Labor, US Dept. of Ed.

State – Michigan Economic Dev. Corp., Prima Civitas Foundation

Regional – LEAP, Chambers of Comm., CAMW!, Econ. Dev. Corps

Educational – Mich. State Univ., Univ. of Mich., Central Mich. Univ., Kettering Univ.

Trade Associations – Small Business Association of Michigan, MI Manufacturers. Assoc., MI Assoc. of Insurance Agents

 Value of Economic Development Services at Community Colleges

LCC leadership understands the value of creating and maintaining a strong relationship with the business community, and invests in programs to support regional economic development initiatives.  This mutually beneficial relationship yields economic value for industry, as well as increased demand for a higher-educated community.

However, a significant challenge and common misconception by some community colleges across the country is that economic development related “services” are expenses to the college, versus an investment in growing jobs and education.

Hence, placing an over emphasis on financial ROI is an inaccurate and incomplete measure of the value of this nature of strategic investment.  This short-term perspective may ultimately hinder business growth and subsequently, student population.

In support, a study of California community colleges cited that for every dollar spent on economic and workforce development programs at Community Colleges, there is a $12 increase in California’s business income and employee wages.

For Instance

As part of our unique role as an economic development change agent, the following initiatives reflect only a few of Lansing Community Colleges (LCC) non-credit services in support of business and workforce development.

 Through LCC’s involvement with the Michigan New Jobs Training Program, LCC partners with the State of Michigan to enable companies to receive financial assistance for the customized training of new employees. This unique economic incentive allows for businesses to partner with a community to develop training programs that produce highly-trained employees, resulting in a competitive advantage.

Lansing Community College has partnered with General Motors to capitalize upon this economic development initiative.  The General Motors Delta Township expansion included the addition of a new vehicle, as well as an entire third shift of approximately 1300 workers to our region.  The program provided the economic support (training funds) to train new workers in cutting-edge technical skills needed on the plant floors today.

URV Inc. is another example of LCC’s work in this area. URV will collaborate with Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tenn., to develop a new, more cost-effective casting process to produce its large, utility-scale wind turbine components and we will deliver the training.

The “Tech Knowledge E-Pathways” Regional IT Education/Career Pathways Project is a huge win for our region in the area of IT as a result of a grant submitted by Capital Area Michigan Works! , the Capital Area IT Council in partnership with Lansing Community College, and numerous and diverse private and public sector partners. It is critical for any education/career pathway to provide multiple options for program participants to plug into, and advance along a continuum of education/training and employment opportunities, and LCC will be a training partner in this initiative as well.

In Conclusion – Education IS Economic Development

While most community colleges began with a mission to serve the community with low-cost, accessible educational programs, they often found that their mission was tied not only to the academic and educational goals of their students, but also to the health of the community’s economy.

In a May 2011 paper, the Brookings Institute suggests that states in the US, “Identify and target priority clusters and industry sectors critical to regional competitiveness and expansion, promoting partnerships that engage community colleges in economic development.”

Lansing Community College has, and will continue to be a leader in economic development – owning its unique role, because it is not only the right thing to do, but because the return on investment is fundamental and comprehensive.

Solutions

• Community Colleges must be market-driven and more focused on their role in developing the talent pipeline.
• More seamless and focused collaboration between employers, entrepreneur support organizations, and the community college system can positively support the development of demand-driven curricula and programs.
• The future role of community colleges in the economic development system can be enhanced if the community college engages the business community in the decision-making process.

 Questions to consider:

• How can LCC deepen its engagement with the business community?
• How a community college increase its involvement in economic development efforHow can non-traditional learning aid economic developm
• Who else should LCC partner with in economic development efforts?

submitted by Bo Garcia MBA, MPA, Executive Director, Business & Community Institute;  and Tom Donaldson, Certified Business Consultant, Regional Director, MI-SBTDC at Lansing Community College

References

 Snyder, R., (2011).   A Special message from Governor Rick Snyder:  Developing and connecting Michigan’s talent, to Michiganders and the Michigan Legislature., Dec. 1, 2011.  Retrieved from http://www.michiganv/documents/snyder/SpecialMessageonTalent_369995_7

Michigan Association of Community Colleges, (2011).  The Michigan new jobs training program.  Retrieved from http://www.mcca.org/uploads/fckeditor/file/MCCA%20Jobs%20book%20WEB(1).pdf

Michigan Economic Development Corporation, (2011).  Commitment to workforce and training.  Retrieved from http://www.michiganadvantage.org/Commitment-to-Work-Force-and-Training/ – MEDC Commitment to Workforce Training

Michigan Economic Development Corporation, (2011).  Questions and answers. Retrieved from http://www.michiganadvantage.org/New-Business-Taxes-Questions-And-Answers/ 

Kazis, Richard.  “Community Colleges and Regional Recovery: Strategies for State Action.”  brookings.edu. Brookings Intitution, May 2011.  Web.  9 Dec. 2011.

Van Noy, Michelle, et al.  “Noncredit Enrollment in Workforce Education: State Policies and Community College Practices.”  aacc.nche.edu.  American Association of Community Colleges, 30 Sep. 2011.  Web.  9 Dec. 2011.

MacAllum, Keith, et al.  “The 21st-Century Community College.”  ed.gov.  Department of Education, Sep. 2004.  Web.  9 Dec. 2011.

Maher & Maher.  “The Future Role of Community Colleges in Workforce Development.”  mahernet.com.  Sept. 2009.  Web.  9 Dec. 2011.

The subject paper provides an informative review of how we use technology to teach and learn. As I began reading the paper, I was struck by two observations:

1. Our students and, of course, all of us learn in different ways. The paper reviews verbal, oral, and kinesthetic learning, but I am using a book in one my current courses that reviews, for example, 7 kinds of intelligence and, therefore, 7 ways to learn. We all learn in different ways and, I believe, tend to teach in the way in which we most comfortably learn. It is certainly a challenge for me and, by extension, many of us to facilitate learning in other ways so that we are most likely to help students with ways of learning that are different from our own.
2. Perhaps the most important thing we do, as instructors, is to engage with our students in dialogue. Whenever we get beyond a face-to-face classroom, meaningful dialogue is more challenging.

As I move deeper into the paper, I find an assertion that conflicts with some of my own views.

The third paragraph, as I understand it, says that Gen Zero classes produce weaker success rates than more recent technologies. My own experience leads me to think hybrid and online courses yield lower student success rate. I have no data, so I may be wrong. We did, however, find that MGMT 234 student success rates were statistically lower when online courses were introduced. That phenomenon may have been a result of the learning curve associated with using new technology, but it still holds after 5 years of data. That may mean that there are improvement opportunities in the use of technologies beyond Gen Zero.

I generally agree with the other descriptions of Gen One and want to highlight a few that, in my view, are particularly important ideas:

• I think the idea of asynchronous dialogue that is both oral and visual is an extremely valuable tool. It accentuates the importance of dialogue discussed earlier.
• Verbal grading of student assignments is another valuable way to engage in dialogue with our students.
• Virtual team work is difficult, but because it is part of the real world, we should continue to use it.
• Virtual learning does create isolation. That is an opportunity for system improvement.
• Because I think my course must be continually reshaped to accommodate student interests and concerns and a changing world, I find face-to-face teaching more challenging than what seems to be described in the paper. However, I agree that Gen One technology makes meaningful interaction with students much more time consuming, and much less satisfactory.

The section on Generation Today opens better opportunities for user-generated content. That seems to me to be an exciting way to create more collaboration among all of us as learners.

The future takes me back to the beginning. LCC has, among others, two strengths: a history of leading the way with technology and excellent professors. A powerful way forward would be to strategically pursue high quality, reliable technology that makes both synchronous and asynchronous virtual dialogue (visual, written, and oral) among students and instructors that is easy and flourishing. This future would give LCC a competitive edge in higher education. I believe it would require at least two things:

1. A proactive effort to co-design this new technology for LCC.
2. An exceptional faculty development effort to productively use the new technology. Faculty development would have to be available with all channels of communication including coaching 24/7, 365 days a year in order to help faculty find the resources necessary to make the new technology work as designed.

David Schwinn
schwinnd@lcc.edu

Another mission has traditionally been that of general education.  The conflict between specialized education and general education has existed since the Middle Ages.  However, we are currently faced with increased pressure to further reduce general education.  The important questions are: what is driving the decline in general education and can it be justified?  Though some have argued that the force driving this decline is a lowering of academic standards, this conclusion is incorrect.

The best understanding of the cause behind the decline in general education is the influence of business.

Looking at American higher education one hundred and fifty years ago, we find that the Bachelor’s degree contained a large core of general education.  In fact, the B.A. was typically not  intended as a specialist degree.  Rather, the Bachelor’s degree was a sort of “gentleman’s” degree that certified the holder as knowledgeable about the important cultural history of the West (including philosophy, theology, literature, and history) and had had a working knowledge of Greek and Latin.

The contemporary complaint about the loss of the general education core in the B.A. degree is (in part) a complaint about the loss of this “gentleman’s” degree. Increasingly, the B.A. is now a specialist diploma that includes only a bare bones outline of the important cultural background of Western Civilization (or the larger World Civilizations).  The forces that drove this change have not been merely the business elite.  Rather, we need to see that throughout the 20th century, American colleges have increasingly marketed themselves toward working-class and lower middle-class families.  In the 19th century, young men from families of the wealthy elites traditionally obtained some form of college degree.  College presidents and other high level administrators noticed at the end of the 19th century that they had a relatively small number of potential clients (students).  The expansion of college education into the working and lower-middle classes was achieved through providing these people what they thought they needed to succeed.  And success in the eyes of the working and lower-middle classes was not a “gentleman’s” degree that contained little or no “practical” knowledge.  These people demanded that college education be specialized training that explicitly prepared them for jobs/careers that offered a level of economic affluence.

It is an elitist attitude that tells working and lower-middle class youth that they really need to study Greek and Latin, history and philosophy rather than business or computer engineering.  To expect the typical youth to spend four years (or often five) in a general B.A. program and then to go on to a master’s program for specialized training is unrealistic.  As long as business will pay adequate wages for specialized employees, there will be a tendency to reduce general education and to replace it with specialized training.  Perhaps, the trend will go so far as to replace the traditional college as the locus of this specialized training.  With the proliferation of specialized business “colleges” already well underway, traditional colleges understand that to insist on a substantial general education component in undergraduate education is to lose students to the new competitors.

The case for general education must be made on larger, humanistic, grounds.  We need to recognize that business/careers will continue to drive our students into specialized training and away from general education.  The question we must ask is not how we can change this situation but, rather, how can we convince the larger society that we all need more than just career training. The question is even more acute for those institutions that grant only the Associate’s Degree.

The old idea of “liberal” education remains valid as we move into the 21st century.  The “liberal arts” have traditionally concerned themselves with the knowledge/educational needs of a free/democratic society.  To fully participate in democratic society one needs more than job training.  Members of democratic societies are asked to participate in democratic decision-making processes.  In recent days candidates for public office have (among other things) railed against abortion and birth control, they have argued in favor of getting rid of unions and social security, they have urged nations to go to war, they have fought genetic testing of the unborn, argued that fossil fuels cause no environmental damage.

Clearly, citizens today need to understand a wide range of social, military, environmental, and scientific issues.  Job training cannot fill this need.  Wide-ranging liberal education in the sciences, humanities, arts, and history can help citizens understand these issues.  No one currently argues that the world is getting simpler; rather citizens are confronted with an wide array of issues that have real repercussions for their lives.  To be ill informed on any of these is to be more easily manipulated and deceived.

Exactly how any college might provide such a “liberating” education is not important;  there are many ways to accomplish this end.  Nonetheless, the failure to provide general education in addition to job/career training is a to fail in a crucial mission: it is a failure to prepare our citizens to be active participants in their own lives.

Dr. Paul Jurczak
Lead Faculty—Philosophy
Lansing Community College
Ph.D. Social Foundations of Education, University of Florida

If you or your group are interested, please contact Elva Revilla, Executive Director of Community Relations and Educational Resource Development by email at revillae@lcc.edu or Jean Morciglio, morcigj@lcc.edu.

Community Forum Notes

• March 12, 2012
• March 13, 2012
• March 15, 2012
• March 16, 2012
• March 20, 2012
• March 22, 2012
• March 26, 2012
• March 27, 2012
• March 29, 2012
• April 17, 2012

To understand where teaching technology is changing and how it might affect LCC’s future, we need some context. We need to take a look backward first before we can look forward. For years, well, actually for centuries, the processes and technologies used in education have been rather stable, perhaps boringly stable. There were certainly innovations along the way. Gutenberg’s printing press in the 16th century was a definite advancement.  There were plenty of experiments in the early days of computers too, but basically little changed. Then in the mid- and late-1990′s the Internet began to trigger a revolution.  The evolution of teaching technology has been continuous and accelerating since then, but to facilitate understanding these changes, we are going to discuss them in terms of “generations of teaching technology”.

Generation Zero

Gen Zero is traditional higher education as practised since the time of Plato. While we typically associate traditional college instruction with lectures, the real core technologies are writing, printing, and speaking.  It’s the written and printed word that’s central. Textbooks, lecture notes, and written assignments submitted on paper are the media that dictate how the teaching is done. These media, while enabling learning for some, also limit it.  Dialogue with the professor and understanding the richness of the subject come only from personal, face-to-face encounters.

The core technologies in Gen Zero have evolved in recent decades.  For professors, the copier and word processor have replaced the mimeo and typewriter. Whiteboards have replaced chalkboards. For students, typewriters and computers have replaced pen-and-paper as the means of creating and submitting assignments.  But the basics for students are the same: printed physical textbook, paper for notes, and a pen or pencil. Textbooks have gotten fancier. Color process litho printing replaced black-and-white, but it’s still a book.

Gen Zero has several disadvantages. First, a student must physically go to school – be at a particular place at a particular time when the professor and others will also be there. For students, traditional Gen Zero learning is both time- and location-intensive. If you can’t be there, you are out of luck.  Family, work, or just sheer distance can easily prevent getting an education. The physical campus and campus life, while attractive to many, can be intimidating to first-timers.  Second, Gen Zero technologies favor particular learning styles. If you learn well by listening to lectures, if you are good with words, if your reading skills are excellent, then you’ll excel.  But if you’re more visual or kinaesthetic, or if you don’t have a solid foundation in reading and writing, you will definitely struggle. Finally, although students attend in classrooms that are filled with other students, Gen Zero still tends to favor solitary study and learning. Yes, some instructors can bring social and group work into Gen Zero classes, but the technology favors isolated individual study.  For all these reasons, Gen Zero technology, traditional college instruction, tends to produce weak success rates.  It’s effective in producing learning in only a selective part of the population.

Nonetheless, Gen Zero teaching technology has several advantages that help explain it’s longevity.  Of course, for a long time, it was the only game in town.  But when compared to newer technologies, Gen Zero has the advantage of being flexible.  Less planning is needed. Courses can be scheduled  and professors assigned at the last minute.  The professor can, if need be, teach “just-in-time” by staying only a week ahead of students in preparing lesson plans.  Prep for courses is definitely easier.  Lectures can be produced from sketchy notes and in-depth knowledge. Courses can be “updated” by choosing a newer edition textbook and the professor keeping up-to-date in reading research in her field.  With Gen Zero teaching technology professors spend their “prep” time either grading or learning what to teach.  The how-to-teach is largely absorbed by mimicking what the professor experienced when she was in school.

In the 1980′s and early 1990′s there were many experiments in “distance learning” in higher education.  Telecourses were developed by large foundations, broadcast by PBS stations, and supported by colleges.  Correspondence courses were tried. Community colleges were often at the forefront of all these efforts in keeping with the community college mission to provide access. But the real revolution in teaching technology awaited the arrival of the Internet and the World Wide Web.

Generation One

The development of the Internet and World Wide Web in the early 1990′s set the stage for a major innovation in teaching technology. In the mid and late 1990′s, several colleges and universities took advantage of newly invented Internet technologies and began offering courses over the Web. E-learning was born. LCC was one of those pioneer colleges being the first community college in Michigan to offer online courses.

As part of this shift to e-learning, new software systems were developed called Learning Management Systems (LMS).  The major LMS’s include Blackboard, Angel, WebCT, Moodle, Sakai, and Desire2Learn.  LCC, after delivering courses on it’s on without a full-blown LMS, moved to Blackboard and then to Angel. Now in 2012 LCC is moving to D2L.  Despite some cosmetic updates, all these LMS’s are essentially the same and essentially the same as they were 10+ years ago.

The basic concept of the LMS and Gen One e-learing is document and file-centric.  Materials and “content” are posted to a controlled private website managed by the LMS.  The content usually takes the form of either static web pages to be read or, more often, files to be downloaded such as Microsoft Word documents, or Powerpoint files or spreadsheets or PDF’s.  The LMS does allow a very rudimentary messaging and bulletin-board functionality, a quiz delivery system, and a simple gradebook tracking.  But the learning process essentially consists of downloading, opening, and viewing files and documents. A student then completes “assignments”, which often are either a quiz or they write their own file/document and upload it to the professor.

E-learning in Generation One technology is still very static text-oriented, only the text is now electronic instead of printed on dead trees. It’s also very isolated. Learners work  by themselves. It’s very difficult to build a sense of community or interaction with the learners.  Most learners work alone with less substantive interaction with their fellow students or the professor than they had in face-2-face Generation Zero technology.

There have been great advantages to Generation One technology.  By enabling learning via the Web, it has allowed asynchronous distance learning. Students who can’t make physically to campus or who can’t commit to a fixed time schedule during the week can now learn and take courses. This has expanded  access to higher education, a core part of our mission.

Generation One technology, while dominating what we’ve called “online classes” for years, should not be confused as being solely online.  Generation One has made increasing inroads into traditional face-to-face instruction, providing flexible easy access to learning materials that supplement the physical classroom.  For example, this author’s face-to-face classes require usage of files and content that are only available on the LMS.  But regardless of the type of class, Generation One is essentially static, text-oriented content delivered in files that are downloaded and uploaded.  The LMS attempts to mimic the closed nature and exclusivity of a classroom.

There are significant disadvantages to Generation One technology, many of which are only apparent to those who have attempted it as either student or professor.  First, Generation One, while breaking down barriers of distance and time, also creates isolation. It puts a premium on motivation and self-directedness by the student.  Students who need intensive hand-holding, or who don’t manage their time well, or who aren’t highly self-motivated don’t do well with Gen One technology.  Gen One also puts a premium on having a learning style that absorbs text well.  Visual or kinaesthetic learners don’t do as well generally.

For professors, the disadvantages include a lack of immediate feedback from students.  It’s a struggle to identify what works and what doesn’t.  Unlike in person, it’s difficult to tell when they don’t get your explanation.  Generation One is also very time consuming.  The simple explanation that can be given orally in person in office hours in 5 minutes, takes a 1/2 hour or more to write in an email.  More significant is that the burden of preparation for the course expands by an order of magnitude with Generation One.  In Generation Zero, class “prep” really meant grading, writing tests, office hours, and putting together some bare bones lecture notes.  A lot could be delivered on the fly in the classroom.  In Generation One, everything is now a written file.  “Lectures” mean a lot of writing.  Course design, navigation, and sequencing of activities/materials becomes critical and time consuming.  And it must all be done before the course begins.  For online Generation One professors, “breaks” between semesters have long ago disappeared. What used to be Christmas break to refresh is now a mad crunch to get the next semester’s courses ready.

In the early years of Generation One, there was much thought, often by administrators and publishers, that perhaps “master courses” could be prepared once and then delivered repeatedly by the authoring professor and other professors. Experience has shown though that this hope for economizing on prep by the one-time creation of relatively stable “master courses” was an illusion. First, it takes several attempts at a course, particularly an online course to figure out what works and what doesn’t.  Typically a newly designed and created course will have to be totally redesigned the following semester based on the lessons of the first attempt. Second, online courses are highly sensitive to who is teaching them.  What works well for one professor doesn’t work for another because it’s not how the second professor approaches the subject.  Online courses work best when it’s truly the voice of the professor teaching it. In this regard, an online course, it’s design, it’s sequencing, it’s activities and content, are like textbooks.  Yes, they make a good starting point, but the effective professors tell their own stories using the books or materials as support.

Overall, Generation One teaching technology has mirrored what Silicon Valley has called Web 1.0.   In recent years however Web 2.0 has emerged. And with it, so has a new generation of teaching technologies.

Generation Today

Web 2.0 technologies have combined with insights into learning from education experts to create what we’ll call Generation Today.

Starting around 2005 the World Wide Web began to shift to what Silicon Valley called Web 2.0.  Web 2.0 is interactive and depends on connectedness and user-generated content. Prototypical examples of Web 2.0 are Wikipedia, Youtube, Facebook, Twitter, blogging systems like WordPress, and the many applications developed by Google.  Many of these tools, while not specifically designed for education, are either free or low-cost enabling tech-oriented professors to experiment.

At the same time, professors experienced in Generation One struggled to improve the learning and engagement of students.  Education researchers began to explain the importance of theories such as connectivism and constructivism in  developing improved learning.  These different strands rapidly came together to begin to produce the current set of teaching technologies: Generation Today.

Generation Today teaching tools engage more senses. They’re interactive. They engage the learner. They help tap into multiple learning styles and make learning more accessible.  The also help students connect with each other. A critical feature is that they are heavily visual – they rely on rich web pages instead of static file downloads.  They involve video and audio and pictures.  They break the tyranny of static text-based files, opening access to many more and allowing better instruction.

Generation Today teaching is still evolving along with the tools for it.  Sometimes students create digital media and sharing it. Sometimes students collaborate by jointly editing a document or speadsheet or presentation simultaneously online. Sometimes students are chatting online with instant messaging.  The uses are numerous and rapidly expanding.

The advantages of Generation Today are engagement and access for more students.  Students respond to it. Generation Today responds well to the growth of smart phones and tablets, freeing learning from the desktop. Today’s “digital natives”, students who have always had the Internet in their lives, expect learning to be Generation Today.  They want lectures to be “captured” and recorded in Youtube style videos, even when they attend the lecture in person.  They want podcasts (MP3 audio files) of explanations of key concepts to supplement written text. They want to create, collaborate, connect, and share.

Generation Today technologies are tremendously challenging to colleges though.  The primary drivers of Generation Today technologies in higher education have often been the small cadre of advanced, “push the envelope” tech-oriented professors who experiment with the technologies.  Many colleges have accelerated their move to Generation Today by adopting Google Apps for Education, a free suite of apps provided by Google to educational institutions.  Others are developing their own web apps and implementing newer technologies for all faculty such as blog systems, lecture capture technology, and Apple’s U-Tunes.  Open e-textbooks are another example of the move towards Generation Today.

Nonetheless, there are major challenges.  Generation Today technologies are generally open and decentralized. This runs counter to historical IT practice at most colleges where controlled and closed systems have been the rule.  Generation Today technologies in many ways are counter to the design and concept of the major LMS’s of Generation One.  The LMS’s are still needed, largely because Generation Today open technology hasn’t found a way (yet) to handle and aggregate grade and assessment data. But even here, it may only be a matter of a short time as some projects are working on that problem right now. A further challenge is professional development.  Generation Today is being adopted piecemeal by individual professors, but all of them must be brought along.  A final challenge is that, unless materials and tools are freely and openly shared among professors at different institutions, the time involved to create and courses expands by another order of magnitude beyond even Generation One.

Generation Today technologies are changing very rapidly and changing education rapidly as well.  But even Generation Today isn’t the last word.  There’s already an entire new generation of teaching technology that’s just emerging.

Generation Universal (or Coming)

I will call the next generation of teaching technologies Generation Universal or Coming, because it’s not just “tomorrow”.  It’s already starting to happen today, just not on the scale that Generation Today is.  At LCC, we have a very small number of professors who are part of this newly emerging generation of technologies.

In the coming Generation of  teaching technology, learning is universally accessible – it’s everywhere, thanks to a ubiquitous Internet, displays, and mobile connectivity. It’s also immersive.  You don’t just watch or create in this new generation, you learn in the materials.  It involves sophisticated “serious” games, or virtual reality, or augmented reality. In keeping with the spirit of the new generations of technology, instead of trying to explain in words what they’re like, it’s easier to show you.  If you watch this short (7+ minute) video prepared by Corning Glass, you’ll see some of what we mean by “learning using augmented reality”. Pay particular attention when the girls get to school and go on a field trip.

Corning: A Day in Glass Two

There is an accompanying video (longer) that explains how close the technologies are to reality. Some are here now. Others such as the transparent tablets are perhaps 2-3 years away. Others, like the large wall-size glass displays are further out. In higher education terms, 3-5 years is right around the corner.

LCC’s Challenge

I have tried to summarize the movement of these four generations of teaching and learning technologies in the following simple graph (obviously the time axis is discontinous).  It shows how teaching with Generation Zero has peaked. It’s declining. Generation One, the original LMS and e-learning file-centric technology initially expanded access and utilization.  But it is being rapidly replaced with Generation Today technologies and Generation Coming has already begun.  One of the challenges for LCC is that while LCC was a pioneer and innovator in Generation One, it now faces a classic innovator’s dilemma.  It has grown stagnant and not embraced or widely implemented Generation Today technologies, which poses a serious risk and opportunity.  The risk is competitive.  The opportunity is to serve even more students better.

At the same time, however, community colleges have experienced deep cuts in the federal, state and local support that has accounted for 55 percent of their revenue—more than any other higher education sector has experienced (Chronicle of Higher Education, http://chronicle.com/article/Obamas-Best-Bet-5-Billion/128990/).

Even though Michigan’s overall unemployment rate is beginning to drop, in 2010 the number of people who were unemployed for more than 26 weeks reached a record high of 50 percent—higher than any other Midwestern state. Long-term unemployment for workers in their prime working years was also at a record high of 55 percent. The percentage of available low-wage jobs has increased and, perhaps most alarmingly, the unemployment rate for African-Americans increased even as the overall rate decreased. Given these figures, the need for postsecondary credentials that can help workers find and retain good jobs is clear (Michigan League for Human Services, www.milhs.org/publications-reports).

Michigan is in the bottom 10 states in the nation in tax dollars spent per student from 2005–2010 for higher education (State Higher Education Executive Officers Report, http://www.sheeo.org/finance/shef/SHEF_FY10.pdf). Lansing’s tax revenues, which are a central funding source for Lansing Community College, continue to fall as housing values decrease and population numbers decline.

As Michigan’s third largest community college, LCC shares in the State’s economic struggles. These indicators have hurt LCC’s income streams even as the number of students has grown. As a result, LCC has gone through budget cuts and now must compete for these increasingly limited resources.

The College strives to maintain a healthy financial condition while continuing its commitment to academic excellence, but the increasing need for higher academic credentials, changing workforce needs, and the emergence of demands for lifelong education require changes in how LCC develops and maintains its fiscal capacity to deliver high quality academic and occupational programs.

Given these daunting economic and operational trends, it is imperative that the College expands its resources to fully participate in the economic recovery and prepare future workers to fill growing employment needs. Specifically, LCC must invest in alternative resource development to attain federal and private foundation grants, scholarship funds, and individual giving, in order to continue offering high-quality, affordable, and accessible education to everyone seeking it.

National trends in education show that a growing number of people will need postsecondary education or training to be eligible for jobs in the new “knowledge based” economy. According to a study by Georgetown University, 28 percent of jobs will require all workers to have some college attendance or a two-year Associate degree by 2018. (http://www9.georgetown.edu/grad/gppi/hpi/cew/pdfs/clusters-complete-update1.pdf).

The increase in LCC’s student enrollment from 2006–2010 demonstrates the need for this workplace-related education. Table 1 illustrates this growth.

Table 1.  LCC Total Attendance 2006-2010

Source:  Lansing Community College Comprehensive Annual Financial Report 2011 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report

As the least expensive postsecondary education option in a community that continues to face a difficult economic situation, LCC is well-positioned to attract a diverse group of students that will include individuals who are looking for a less expensive option to four-year colleges and universities, those who have recently lost their job and are looking to retool their skills, and those who are seeking further education to remain competitive in the job market.

A 2009 study by Michigan’s Workforce Alliance states that guaranteed access to two years of postsecondary education or training meaningfully invests in Michigan’s workers so that they can fill middle skill jobs in computers, construction, healthcare, transportation, public safety and other in-demand fields.[1]  These positions represent the largest share of jobs in Michigan—some 51 percent—and the largest share of future job openings. They are also local, hands-on jobs that are unlikely to be outsourced to other countries (Skills2Compete—Michigan Campaign, http://www.nationalskillscoalition.org/assets/reports-/skills2compete_forgottenjobs_mi_2009-10.pdf).  Noted University of Michigan economist George Fulton predicts that Michigan will add a net total of 63,000 jobs this year, an additional 32,000 jobs in 2012, and 45,000 in 2013 (MLive.com,http://www.mlive.com/jobs/index.ssf/2011/11/michigans_economy_is_improving_but_it_st.html).

While the need for specific workforce certification and degrees is increasing, economic recessions have had a negative impact on both state public services and individual finances. The decline in tax revenues results in lower funding of public services and higher unemployment rates, which translates into smaller increases or actual decreases in family income. For college and university students and their families, this impact of the recession has been compounded because the steepest tuition increases have come during recessions when students and families—particularly those from the lowest income groups—are least able to pay.

LCC is strongly committed to helping all students continue to attend the College, but at the same time is facing the daunting challenge of dwindling income from traditional funding sources. To help meet this downturn, the College has increased its in-district tuition in the last year by $3 per credit hour—its first tuition increase in four academic years. With tuition and fees accounting for 40 percent of revenue and few resources available to further diversify income streams for the remaining 60 percent, the College finds itself at a difficult financial intersection as costs rise more quickly than income—despite the tuition increase.

This change has led to funding cuts across the system and continuing pressure from other sources to further cut operating costs. In addition to dwindling resources, the College is receiving criticism from inside and outside about how it is spending the money it does have. These viewpoints expect the College to produce students with high technology, cutting edge job skills and at the same time reduce its overall expenses, which have been increasing each year despite frugal budget planning—9.3 percent from FY 2007–FY 2011. Table 2 illustrates these increases.

Table 2.  Expenditure by ACS Category – All Funds Five-Year Trend

Source:  Lansing Community College Annual Budget Fiscal Year 2011–2012

Fiscal Year 2012 Annual Budget

To successfully respond to this economic environment, LCC must find and attain other sources of financial support. Now is the time to move this process forward, as the economy begins its recovery and both traditional and non-traditional students remain interested in pursuing postsecondary education. While there has been a decrease in LCC enrollment over the past year, this change reflects current growth in the job market, and possibly fewer students being able to enroll due to tuition and fees increases. This decline is actually returning LCC’s enrollment to pre-recession levels, but it is possible that this number will rise again as veterans return from oversees and seek training to shift their military skills to ones more closely aligned with the job market. Regardless of the number of students, however, the College’s expenses will continue to rise as operating and capital costs increase.

Increased grant funding can play a major role in securing needed outside financial support to help address these rising costs. While some federal grant dollars have diminished in the last two years, many have remained level and some have even increased as government funding priorities have changed. Private foundations, whose support has largely not been pursued by the College, also provide significant funding opportunities that can help meet specialized needs not covered by large-project federal funds. Building individual and corporate giving can play a major role in increasing the College’s income, as well. It is generally true in fundraising that private giving significantly exceeds grant funding.

To demonstrate the potential power of grant funding, however, a research group of academics from several universities and think tanks recently recommended that the federal Departments of Labor and Education develop new grants to pay for job training of about 250,000 less-skilled workers each year, to attain employment in high-growth and well-paying fields such as nursing. These grant funds would not only finance training programs, but would also encourage collaboration between community and technical colleges and employers—activities in which LCC already participates, suggesting it could be quite competitive for these grant funds.

In addition, a proposed federally-funded grant program to retrain displaced workers would help pay for retraining workers who have been displaced from “high tenured” jobs—positions held for a minimum of three years. Researchers found that when these workers landed new employment, their earnings declined by an average of 20 percent. However, they took only half as much of a financial hit if they received two years of additional training (Chronicle of Higher Education, http://chronicle.com/article/Research-Group-Proposes-New/129944).

These two actions demonstrate the strong impact significant grant growth at LCC could achieve.

Individual and corporate giving, as mentioned above, historically bring in more outside funding than grants, and must be more aggressively pursued by LCC. The College has made an excellent start in increasing these funding resources, but the total percentage of this income must continue to grow to meet expanding fiscal need. Currently, individual giving nationally shows no increase over the last year because of the recession’s continuing impact, and fully 65 percent of donors don’t plan to increase their giving this year (Chronicle of Higher Education, http://philanthropy.com/blogs/prospecting/a-stark-outlook-for-fund-raising-in-2012/31840).

However, this situation, despite its less than optimal short-term impact, provides an excellent time to support LCC’s Foundation with the structure and resources to better position it to increase donor giving.

Table 3 shows the increase in LCC’s revenue from grants and gifts over the past five years.

Table 3.  Revenue Sources – All Funds Five-Year Trend

Source:  Lansing Community College Annual Budget Fiscal Year 2011–2012

Fiscal Year 2012 Annual Budget

One of LCC’s most demanding tasks in the coming years will be to successfully address the challenge of responding to diminishing resources by building a solid and growing base of outside grants and individual giving. To do this, the College must evaluate its current funding sources and develop strategies to cultivate and maintain strong, mutually beneficial funding relationships. It must also develop effective communications strategies that promote the value of LCC and build internal and external enthusiasm for supporting its work. Perhaps most importantly, it needs to consistently demonstrate that it is effectively achieving its mission. Without taking this step, it will be difficult for the College to create an environment that can successfully respond to fundamental shifts in education, culture and the larger economy.

[1] Middle skill jobs are those that require more than a high school diploma but less than a four-year degree.

1. Property tax revenue
2. State appropriation revenue
3. Enrollment and rightsizing
4. Capital versus operating expenditures
5. Allocation of scarce resources to the right priorities for the future
6. Tuition pricing (Accessibility)

Challenge #1: Property Tax Revenue

Everyone is aware that real estate values have been devastated by the current economic situation.  In Michigan, property tax revenue is further affected by legislation passed in the early 1990s. Under Proposal A of 1994, the State of Michigan capped the increase in taxable value at 5 percent or CPI for the year, whichever is less. The use of taxable value for real estate was intended to provide predictability, relative to inflation, and to smooth property taxes over time. For LCC, the affect has been property tax revenue that neither increases nor decreases as quickly as the corresponding market.

Before 2008, Proposal A generally kept taxable values lower than the state equalized value—or half of a property’s assessed market value. Taxable values within the College’s district peaked in 2009 and have declined more than 8 percent from 2009 to 2011 (our Fiscal Years 2010-2012).  Since 2008, the market has declined significantly with ongoing speculation regarding the “bottom.” When the market hits “bottom,” we must consider the timing delay in the formula that could continue to put downward pressure on the College’s property tax revenue–even if the overall market begins to increase.

Conclusion:  LCC cannot count on increased revenue from property taxes at any time in the next 3-5 years.  Indeed, there is risk of some further drops in property tax revenue.

Challenge #2:  State Appropriation Revenue

The College’s appropriation from the State of Michigan peaked in Fiscal Year 2002 at $32.2 million. Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2012 are $28.7 million, representing a decline of more than 11 percent during the last 10 years.

State appropriations present two challenges. First, overall economic drivers determine the amount of State revenue and subsequent available funding. Because of this, the State of Michigan and community colleges have been under pressure since the Great Recession began in December 2007.

Second, the State has committed to using a funding formula for at least 50 percent of any changes to community college funding in the future. This formula applies metrics for Completion (using Degrees from the IPEDS Completion Survey) and Student Contact Hours (using Credit Hour Equated Students from the ACS reports). These two measures will be used to allocate approximately 50 percent of any changes to community college funding.

Conclusion: State appropriation revenue, which has been dropping for a decade, is unlikely to see significant increases.  And, any increase will be heavily dependent upon our actual performance in helping students to complete.

Challenge #3: Enrollment and Rightsizing

LCC has been driven by growth over the last few years. In fact, enrollment increased more than 20 percent between 2008 and 2011. Beginning in the summer of 2011, we began to see a significant change in this trend.  Comparing Fall 2010 to Fall 2011, there was a decline of 6.6 percent in credit hours, 8.3 percent in billable hours, 9.0 percent in campus headcount (duplicated), and 9.8 percent in campus seat counts.  While declines have been anticipated because of demographic declines in high school graduates, the decline has been steeper than originally anticipated because of other factors. Those factors include, but are not limited to, changes in LCC orientation, financial aid and registration processes that lead to increased student success; changes to financial aid requirements; and the lifting of the required minimum credit hours for students to remain on their parents’ health care coverage per the Patient Affordable Care Act.

The College has a challenge to determine the “right size” for our base enrollment that will allow us to scale up as enrollment increases. First, however, the challenge is to determine that “right size” for the base enrollment and the appropriate resource allocations for that level.

Conclusion:  The good years of booming enrollment during the recession and its aftermath are over. Enrollment is likely to continue to decline in the absence.  LCC needs to figure out what is the “right size” and adjust accordingly.

Challenge #4: Capital versus Operating Expenditures

All institutions face the challenge of short-term versus long-term decisions. This is also true when it comes to expenditures.  The investment in infrastructure and technology is a long-term expenditure and requires ongoing investment and maintenance.  First, we must maintain what we already have.  Next, we must determine the priority investments for the future of the academic mission of the College.

Capital versus operating expenses is not an either/or question. It is a pay now or pay later question with the delay in payment often increasing overall costs due to deferred maintenance. In other words, it is cheaper to fix the roof than to fix the damage from a leak and fix the roof.

Conclusion: LCC needs a process for prioritizing capital investment and maintenance decisions that facilitates the strategic direction of the school.

Challenge #5: Allocation of scarce resources to the right priorities for the future

Two questions must be answered as the College faces the challenge of allocating scarce resources.

First, are we getting value for every dollar we spend?  The College has made significant progress in reducing costs in many areas. This is an ongoing process and requires process review and improvement with an eye toward effectiveness and efficiency.

Next, what are the priorities of the College? We all agree that the academic mission and student success come first. We need to more clearly define what this means. One question we often face when addressing spending priorities is whether it is worth increasing student tuition to pay for particular priorities. We have worked to identify and separate College activities that should be self-supporting such as BCI, Community and Continuing Education, K-12, Parking, Dining, and so on.  We need to ask ourselves whether there are more College activities that should be self-supporting.  We also need to ask whether we should stop doing activities that cannot support themselves.

Conclusion: Balancing the budget in the face of flat or declining revenue will increasingly mean choosing what to do and what not to do at all, not just squeezing.

Challenge #6: Tuition Pricing (Accessibility)

As noted in Challenge #5, one question we often ask regarding spending priorities is: “Is it worth adding to student tuition to pay for this?” LCC is committed to keeping tuition as affordable as possible.  We do this by addressing the first five challenges in this essay and asking this question for every dollar we expend.

Briefing Paper Contributed by Catherine Fisher, Chief Financial Officer for LCC.