So the Democratically engineered "path out" for the middle class is routed through mediocrity? Let's give the socialist architects a big hand! 

Is Massachusetts Bay Community College that much better? It seems to have a fairly high retention rate (54%), but the graduation rate from that august institution seems to be ca. 14%--which doesn't include transfers and graduation from other institutions, but still.

I wonder if retention (for students and faculty) might come easier if the students needing remediation prior to handling college level work were served at a different site. I understand that the argument against such a notion is that lower level students need to be around a more challenging and academically rich environment, however I feel that they had that chance at some point in their past. I can tell you first hand that Bunker Hill Community is really no different in terms of kids hanging out in the hallways, planning their week ends, goofing around and generally being non-academic than any other city high school. Better to have the knuckle-heads work at a separate site for a year. Anecdotal evidence is all I can offer on that. 

A complete re-think of how we deliver educational opportunities to working adults is in order. Expecting people to work at a job during the day & then sit in a classroom listening to someone lecture - just as those people did when they were in high school - is ridiculous.

Can we look at ways to deliver intensive learning experiences (such as 4 all-day Saturdays replacing 1 semester-long class)? Perhaps course credit for industry certification (in IT, automotive, electrical)? Offer courses off-site to accomodate students located at that site (6-8 students at 1 site = on site class vs on-campus)?

Adult learners aren't looking for the "college experience" when it comes to campus life - they want the course work leading to a degree offered in a timely, reliable manner that at least seems to be attainable within a reasonable amount of time. There must be other ways of providing this.

College is NOT for everyone. Community colleges used to be places for people who were "college material" to get their first two years of schooling at a low cost, while positioning themselves for scholarships when they transferred into four-year institutions. Over the last twenty years, they have become a dumping ground for students who should be tracked into vocational training, NOT an "Associates Degree" that has pretty much lost all meaning. There is nothing wrong with being well-trained for a skilled trade, and remediation in math and language arts is apropriate for this. Such remediation, which has infected even higher-tier four-year institutions, has no, and I repeat, NO place in higher **academic** education. When will we get over this ridiculous notion that everyone has the same potential? They don't. Some people are wired for academic achievment, some are not. The dilution of standards in higher ed since I entered college thirty-eight years ago is sickening.

(The comment below is just my own opinion.  Although I am a contingent faculty member at a community college, what I have written doesn not represent any group even though many of my colleagues may share my opinions on these topics.)

Our community colleges have a tripartite mission:  prepare the students who so desire to move into careers, prepare the students who so desire to matriculate to a four-year school, and prepare all of our students  to become thoughtful, engaged citizens.

As state funding has declined by 22% over the past five years, these goals have become more and more difficult to realize.  When the Governor proposed his community college reform plan, including a new $400,000 bureaucracy, we were promised that industry would contribute $10 million to our schools, but to the best of my knowledge, we have not seen a penny of that money.

When the vast majority of our faculty are now only hired part-time (80% in my department) on a semester-to-semester basis, when thousands of our students have no faculty adviser or are unable to find their instructor in during office hours, since many of us don't have offices and none of us are paid for keeping regular office or advising students, it is not surprising that our students suffer.  Faculty working conditions=student learning conditions, but when the students in need of the greatest support are taught by the faculty with the least support (in addition to the aforementioned lack of office space, we frequently do not have adequate access to computers or other office materials, and we never have never had health insurance or pensions to augment our salaries, which are usually less than half of what a full-time faculty member teaching the same course earns), we have a two-tier eduational system for both our faculty and our students. 

Remedying what has become an intrinsically unequal system will require more than merging two campuses.

Betsy Smith/Adjunct Professor of ESL/Cape Cod Community College

I'm sure some Democrat pols could be coaxed into taking the Bunker Hill and Roxbury presidencies (for 300 or 400 grand). 

There is no doubt that strong leadership, better resources, and especially a shift toward more full-time faculty would increase the effectiveness of community colleges. It should be pointed out, however, that graduation rates are an inadequate measure of a community college's success. 

Many people enroll in community colleges with goals other than obtaining a degree, such as brushing up on specific skills, completing pre-requisites for bachelor's or graduate programs, or completing a short sequence of courses leading to a job-focused certificate. The simplistic use of graduation rates as the sole outcome measure does not reflect the many students who enter with no intention of earning a degree but do, in fact, achieve their educational goals. 

More nuanced and inclusive outcome measures are needed if we are to get an accurate assessment of how well community colleges are fulfilling their mission.