INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UM I a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize m aterials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand corner and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book. Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9" black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order. U n iv ers ity M icrofilm s In tern atio na l A Be il & H o w ell Inform ation C o m p a n y 3 0 0 N o rth Z e e b R e a d . A n n Arbor. Ml 4 8 1 0 6 - 1 3 4 6 U S A 3 1 3 /7 6 1 -4 7 0 0 8 0 0 ,5 2 1 -0 6 0 0 Order N u m b er 9233912 A ccessibility of com m unity colleges in Michigan: A comparison o f state population distribution w ith state funding distribution Marinoni, Ann, Ph.D. Michigan State University, 1992 UMI 300 N. ZeebRd. Ann Arbor, MI 48106 ACCESSIBILITY OF COMMUNITY COLLEGES IN MICHIGAN: A COMPARISON OF STATE POPULATION DISTRIBUTION WITH STATE FUNDING DISTRIBUTION By Ann Marinoni A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Teacher Education 1992 ABSTRACT ACCESSIBILITY OF COMMUNITY COLLEGES IN MICHIGAN: A COMPARISON OF STATE POPULATION DISTRIBUTION WITH STATE FUNDING DISTRIBUTION By Ann Marinoni The problem of this study was the need to compare population distribution and State funding of community colleges in Michigan using distance as a measure of access. This was done to determine accessibility of community colleges in Michigan. Each of the 29 community colleges and 1,627 localities was identified as x,y coordinates. A computer program using the Pythagorean Theorem measured all of the possible combinations. ranges: The results listed localities in three community college/s within 25 miles, within 26-50 miles, and beyond 50 miles. Per-capita county values of State funding provided to community colleges were calculated to compare counties. Each county's per-capita value was the quotient of the amount of 1990 State funds provided to community colleges within accessible distance divided by the county population. Sources of operating revenues were studied to determine the changes in community college funding over the last 20 years (newest community college established in 1969). Population and funding shifts that might have an effect on accessibility were also studied. The major findings and conclusions of this study were as follows: 1. State funding among the 29 community colleges in 1990 ranged from 21% to 64% of operating revenues. Local tax support among the colleges ranged from 4% to 48%. Tuition revenues ranged from 15% to 38%. The variation among the schools has increased from 1970 to 1990. In the absence of local taxation, increased State funding and tuition are the compensating revenue sources. 2. In Michigan, 92.7% of the population live within 25 miles of a community college and another 4.9% live within 50 miles of a community college; however, only 74% of the localities in Michigan are within 25 miles of a community college, with 92% of the localities within 50 miles. 3. Per-capita values, based on the distribution of state funding, vary among the counties from 0 to $1,071.62. Some residents have no community college within 50 miles, while others have as many as 11. Local tax revenue sources to support community colleges do not coincide with percapita values. 4. State funding and population shifts during the last 20 years may have affected accessibility. To my mother and father, Iva (Raymond) Rynberg and Lawrence Rynberg, for their strong desire to learn and to pursue goals against unusual barriers; to my daughter, Colleen Cleary, may this fervor for learning and perseverence be a driving force and value; and to my supportive and caring husband, Mario. i ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The completion of this dissertation marks the final requirement for the Doctor of Philosophy degree. It has taken many years of study to reach this point, but it probably will not be my last research study. It will be remembered, I am sure, as the most difficult to complete. Living 300 miles from the campus of Michigan State University presented challenges. Several faculty and staff members at Michigan State University have encouraged and supported me in my doctoral program. The leadership of Dr. Charles Blackman in the offcampus doctoral studies program in the Upper Peninsula made it possible for me to take weekend classes with my colleagues— Dr. Bruce Harger, Dr. Dixie Light, and Prof. Liz Foley. They mads the long hours on the road both enjoyable and enriching, thank you. I also appreciate the support and direction received from Dr. Blackman as a member of my guidance committee and class instructor. Dr. Robert Poland, my committee Chairperson, was preceded by his national reputation as a leader in business education. It was an honor to be able to work with him. I am grateful for his agreeing to work with me both on campus and across the miles in completing this research study. Thank you to Dr. Paul Slocum and to Dr. Richard Gardner for serving on my committee, suggesting needed revisions, and providing directions. Several students assisted with data input, requesting information from the community colleges, and the graphic production of tables and figures: Sharon Anderson, Brian Shuell, David Rose, Mary Cannello, Colleen Cleary, and Linda LaLonde. I would like to thank my colleague, Dr. Mary Adams, and Ms. Patti Goforth for their assistance with the final copy. The support I received from the administrators at Lake Superior State University helped me reach this goal. Numerous contacts with staff members in the Michigan Department of Education, and the Department of Management and Budget assisted in providing the requested documents and background information. I especially want to acknowledge the assistance of James Folkening and Karen Pawlovich, who were very helpful and took the time to understand my research problem and purpose. This research would have been completed with less precision if it were not for the support and assistance of Jeff Chaney who wrote the computer program. He is a master communicator; it was an unexpected pleasure to be able to work with him in completing the data input and output. Both my husband and daughter have strongly supported me in my studies and this research. I hope I can "turn the tables" to their favor and be ever mindful of all they have invested of themselves for me to achieve this academic goal. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF T A B L E S ......................................... vii LIST OF F I G U R E S ....................................... ix Chapter I. Page INTRODUCTION TO THE S T U D Y ................. Introduction ................................ Statement of the Problem ................... Purpose of the S t u d y ........................ Need for the S t u d y .......................... Research Questions .......................... II. 1 1 4 6 7 12 Michigan Community Colleges Operating R e v e n u e s .......................... Michigan Population Distribution and Community College Access .......... Counties Per-capita State Funding for Accessible Community Colleges . . Community Colleges Per-capita State Funding for Populations with A c c e s s ............................ State Funding and Population Shifts during the Last 20 Years Affecting Access ........... 13 Delimitations .............................. L i m i t a t i o n s ................................ Definition of T e r m s ........................ Organization and Overview of the Study . . . 14 15 16 18 REVIEW OF THE L I T E R A T U R E ................... 21 Introduction ................................ The Purpose and Growth of Community Colleges in the United S t a t e s ........ 21 The The The The The First Generation Second Generation Third Generation Fourth Generation Fifth Generation iv ................. ................. ................. ................. ................. 12 13 13 13 22 22 26 28 32 36 III. IV. Community Colleges in Michigan ............. 36 1900 to 1930 ......................... 1930 to.1950 ......................... 1950 to 1970 ......................... State Legislation and Proposals ... 37 38 39 43 National and State Trends in Financing Community Colleges ................... 55 RESEARCH DESIGN AND PROCEDURES ............. 64 Introduction ................................ Michigan Community Colleges Operating R e v e n u e s .............................. Michigan Population Distribution and Community College Access ............. Counties Per-capita State Funding for Accessible Community Colleges ........ Community Colleges Per-capita Funding for Populations with Access ............... State Funding and Population Shifts during the Last 20 Years Affecting Access . . 64 76 RESEARCH FINDINGS 78 .......................... 64 66 75 75 Introduction ................................ 78 Michigan Community Colleges Operating R e v e n u e s .............................. 79 Michigan Population Distribution and Community College Access ............. 95 Counties Per-capita State Funding for 137 Accessible Community Colleges ......... Community Colleges Per-capita State Funding for Populations with Access - - 140 State Funding and Population Shifts during the Last 20 Years Affecting Access . . 147 V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS . 151 S u m m a r y ....................................... 151 Michigan Community Colleges Operating R e v e n u e s ............................ Michigan Population Distribution and Community College Access ........ Counties Per-capita State Funding for Accessible Community Colleges .. Community Colleges Per-capita State Funding for Populations with A c c e s s .............................. v 153 155 156 157 State Funding and Population Shifts during the Last 20 Years Affecting A c c e s s ......................... 158 C o n c l u s i o n s ..................................... 159 Recommendations .............................. Recommendations for Further Research • 163 . 165 Community Colleges Descriptions .. . Samples of Data Input and Output . . . Computer Program "Distance.Exe" Documentation ................... 167 198 APPENDICES A B C LIST OF R E F E R E N C E S ..............................210 vi 203 LIST OF TABLES Title Michigan Community Colleges Revenue from State Funding Michigan Community Colleges Revenue from Local Tax with Operating Millage Michigan Community Colleges Revenue from Tuition Michigan Community Colleges Revenue from "other" Sources Twenty-year Comparison of In-district and Out-of-district Enrollment and Tuition 1990 Comparison of FYES and Total Headcount Michigan Community College Accessibility State Community College Funding by ^i i « * U U U iiU jf r*n ^ ^ D U ilM U U i. * J Localities with No Community College within 50 Miles Localities with a Community College/s 26 to 50 Miles Localities with a Community College/s within 25 Miles Comparison of County Per-capita Amounts of Accessible State Funding Community College Per-capita Funding— Summary, 1990 vii 14. 15. 16. Comparison of Community College Funding, 1990 142 Comparison of FYES and Headcount as a Percentage of Population Served, 1990 146 Significant County Population Increases 149 viii LIST OF FIGURES Title Recommended Statewide Community College Districts Area beyond 30-Mile Radii of a Michigan Community College Community College Districts 1990 Michigan State Map and Grid Segment County Map and Grid Segment Sample Data Input Form Community Colleges Revenue Sources 1990, 1980, 1970 Michigan Community Colleges State Funding Revenues Comparison Michigan Community Colleges Local Tax Revenues Comparison M i c h i ^ n C crp.xr.uni.t y ColXs^ss Tuition Revenues Comparison Comparison of In-district Tuition Rates for 1970, 1980, and 1990 CHAPTER 1 Introduction to the Study Introduction Funding and accessibility are two major issues facing community colleges. When community colleges were locally funded, accessibility was a motivator and a local issue. As community colleges were established, beginning in the United States in the early 1900s, it was a local concern as to whether or not a school system or community wanted to support a community college (Cohen and Brawer, 1989). State legislation enabled the establishment of a community college, but the decision to fund and the request to establish a community college were rooted by local desire to provide post-secondary education. Most early community colleges in the United States were extensions of K-12 school systems. In 1914 and in 1930 the percentages of revenues to support community colleges received from local taxation were 94 and 85 respectively (Cohen and Brawer, 1989). Martorana (1978, p. 5) concluded, "As recently as twenty years ago [late 50s] the localities served were the predominant source of operating revenue." Thus, post-secondary accessibility was a local concern— if a school system or community wanted to pay for a two-year college (usually by referendum), the establishment of a college was pursued. 2 In 1978 Martorana stated the following in his article, "Shifting Patterns of Financial Support": Of particular interest is the direction in which community colleges are moving in relation to each of the main sources of support for their operations. A review of available studies reveals that the percentage of [state] support had moved from an average of slightly over a third, across the nation in 1955-56 to 54 percent in 1967-68; during that time the percentage borne by the student increased at a much lower rate, from 20 to 22 percent. The percentage carried by local tax sources decreased considerably, from 37 to 20 percent on the average nationwide. On the bases of these data, the conclusion was drawn that state governments are moving toward the position of providing more of the funds for community colleges than local governments, while the students' proportionate share is changing only slightly. (P- 4) In 1986 the national average of state aid was 47 percent of public, two-year college revenues (Cowen and Brawer, 1989). Cowen and Brawer quoted a growth in state aid from 34 percent in 1969 to 45 percent in 1975, lower figures than reported by Martorana, but still a significant percentage increase in state aid. State networks of community colleges and the increase in state funding have intensified the accessibility issue at the state level and have made intrastate equity an issue (Folkening, 1990). The growth of state authority over funding seems to target resolution of accessibility, funding, and access equity as a state rather than a local issue. Providing accessible, post-secondary education at a low cost and fulfilling communities' educational needs are the major functions of community colleges. Monroe (1972) explained the following: In answer to the question: what is a community college? It may be impossible to give a definition which covers all community colleges. Since community colleges can vary greatly from place to place in student-body size, objectives, and faculties, it is difficult to generalize. However, it may be said that a community college is the fulfillment of the American promise to its citizens for universal education: it offers two years of education at a comparative low cost to the student, but not necessarily low cost to the public. (p. 25) The current issues of geographic access and minimizing cost are interdependent— if a campus is closer, education costs less in dollar and time consumption for the student. The effects of transferring public support directly to students in the form of financial aid rather than channeling public funds to institutions is another factor. This further complicates the issues of cost, access, and equity. Funding sources and geographic accessibility are part of the complex problems of efficiently meeting the educational needs of Michigan's citizens. Several proposals have been made in the last 20 years to improve accessibility to community colleges in Michigan. has been adopted (Folkening, 1990). None of these proposals State funding provisions have changed, but the current formula is not fully funded, altering the intended amount of state support (Bernthal, 1991). Each year categorical grants are distributed to community colleges by the State of Michigan, exclusive of the formula (Pawlovich, 1991). 4 The complexity of the accessibility and funding issues appears to have been a major contributor to the lack of effective action (Folkening, 1990). Community college operations are funded by local taxes (millage), state appropriations, tuition, and other sources. Other sources constitute only five percent, mostly bequests/gifts, foundation support, and federal funding for vocationaleducation equipment (Michigan State Board of Education, 1990). In Michigan, state support increased from none in 1914 (first established community college) to 48 percent in 1980. During the 80s state support declined slightly and averaged 40 percent for the state as a whole. Within the State, however, the 29 community colleges received varying state appropriations as a percentage of the general funds— in 1990 this ranged from a low of 21 percent to a high of 64 percent (Michigan State Board of Education, Activity Classification Structure. 1990, p. 43). Statement of the Problem The focal problem of this study was the need to compare state population distribution and state funding distribution for community colleges. This has not been a research topic, and resolution should provide needed information. Geographic access to low-cost education cannot be realized without knowing which populations have access and the degree to which some are lacking access. In addition, as state funding for community colleges has increased, the lack of information concerning state funding distribution compared to population distribution has made it difficult to address the issue of equitable distribution. Michigan's 29 public community colleges were established between 1914 and 1969. State funding data for these colleges are reported through the Community College Services Unit of the Michigan Department of Education. State community college funding data are reported by college. This traditional reporting method focuses on what is provided— the supply side of the service. Potential demand focuses on the need or desire for services. Before the accessibility issue and the possible need or desire for community college services in a state can be effectively addressed, it is necessary to know which people have access and which people do not have access, and to what degree. One way of providing this information is to focus on the location of the people with respect to community college locations and the amounts of state funds provided to the colleges. A comparison of population distribution data with state funding distribution data provides a picture of per-capita support for community college services based on place of residence. Such a comparison of accessibility focuses on the demand side. These data comparisons are rexevant because of the function of community colleges to offer accessible, post-secondary education. In 1972, M. J. Cohen studied the relationship between the number of community colleges in a state, the state's population density and its area. His findings were published in the article, "Junior College Growth," in Change. A. M. Cohen and Brawer (1989) referred to this article and stated, "He found that community colleges tended to be built so that 9 0 - 9 5 percent of the state's population lived within reasonable commuting distance, about 25 miles. When the colleges reached this ratio, the state had a mature community college system, and few additional colleges were built (p. 12)." Cohen's study further stated that Michigan was one of the states classified as having a mature system in the 70s. The others were California, Florida, Illinois, Washington, and Ohio. In the seven states he found the denser the population, the smaller the area served by each college and the higher the per-campus enrollment. Cohen's study looked at each state as a whole— total state population and total state area. Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study was to determine accessibility of community colleges in Michigan using distance as a measure of access and to determine the distribution of State funding as related to accessibility. Although the focus is on a single state, the approach used may serve as a model for study of accessibility in other states. The research findings and conclusions relative to the factors of population and funding distribution may serve the purpose of providing information for addressing major issues facing educators and taxpayers today and in the future. Some of these issues are accessibility of community colleges, equity of funding, the possible need for additional community college locations, or possibile duplication of community college services. While the purpose of the research did not originally extend to making recommendations, the findings and conclusions lead to recommendations and suggestions for further research. Funding and accessibility determine who can attend a community college, where a person may take classes and to some extent when these classes may be taken. The Michigan prescription for community colleges has to take into account the types of programs to be offered and the needs for student services. Types of programming and student services are the variables that determine what students study and why they are attending college. A plethora of possibilities, coupled with the unique needs of Michigan communities indicates that funding and accessibility are state-wide issues, while programming may differ among communities. Need for the Study Committees and task forces in the Department of Education and the State legislature have been dealing with the access issue for many years. In 1989 a Community College Geographic Access Committee was formed by the Michigan Department of Education (Folkening, 1990). This committee studied service areas and proposed a statewide redistricting plan which would be supported by statewide millage; 2 to 2.5 mills were discussed for a 1992 State referendum. The State Board of Education in the spring of 1991 asked that other alternatives be studied to provide statewide accessibility, since it was doubtful that a statewide millage proposal would be approved (Pawlovich and Bernthal, 1991). Funding patterns and accessibility are timely issues. Although none of the proposals since 1970 for new community colleges or redistricting has been adopted, recent changes occurred locally. In June, 1991, the Grand Rapids Junior College district, by referendum, was extended to include the entire Grand Rapids Intermediate School district. Also, a small area (a few city blocks) adjoining Oakland Community College was annexed to that college's district (Bernthal, 1991). Maps showing the location of community colleges and districts are available, but community college access and population distribution are not portrayed on a map showing only where the colleges are located. Although community college revenue data have been available in a data base since 1981 and from reports and budgets written prior to 1981, these data have not been centralized and compared with demographics. National studies have been done to compare state systems, and many studies have been done to describe the 9 role of community colleges and community college governance and control. Few financial studies have been done. Questions of financing policy quickly become entangled in broader questions of educational purpose and priorities (Breneman, 1988). Glenny (1976) wrote, "Scholarship on state budget development [higher education] and evaluation remains in a prenatal state. Political scientists generally have given little attention to the research on the states and even less to their budget practices. This condition is gradually changing as scholars and taxpayers find the federal government unable to solve all problems, and must refocus on the vital role the states still play" (p. 6). The 1984 report, "Putting our Minds Together: New Directions for Michigan Higher Education," stated that in­ district community college programming— the issue of equal access to community colleges— needed to be addressed. "Currently residents of counties outside of community college districts are charged an cut-cf-district rate to attend classes in a neighboring county. The commission recommends that the State Board of Education examine ways to expand in-district programming and make recommendations to the Governor and the State Legislature" (The Governor's Commission on the Future of Higher Education in Michigan, 1984, p. 3). Another perspective from Public Sector Consultants, Inc. (Headley, 1990, p. 11) states, "At present, community college districts contain less than half of the state's land 10 area and only 77 percent of the total state equalized value (SEV) of real and personal property. In lay terms, that means not everyone in Michigan is paying for the many benefits the state reaps from these institutions." Headley's report goes on to point out how funding would be increased by redistricting. Her findings are explained in the review of related literature. A review of the factors determining the amount of State funding and the related issues is needed to understand the current issues which affect funding and accessibility. It is hoped that the review of related literature and research findings will provide insight into community college accessibility and efficiency (meeting objectives at the lowest cost) of State appropriations. Current needs assessments require the centralization of concise background information and comparative funding data. Population distribution has changed since 1969, and funding sources have changed since 1969 (the year the newest community college was established in Michigan). The effects of these changes on acccessibility are unknown. In addition to the need for comparative funding and population data analysis, from state staff members it was learned that the history of community colleges in Michigan is incomplete and fragmented. The Michigan Department of Education has considered an historic compilation. One of the trustees at Wayne County Community College has been gathering background information on Michigan community 11 colleges for the last few years. While this research covers state funding and accessibility issues rather than comprehending the history of community colleges, perhaps one study outcome will be to underscore the importance of such a history. To provide a context for this research, background summaries of each of the 29 community colleges are provided by the researcher and appear in Appendix A. Intrastate equity stems from the accessibility factors: state funding distribution and population distribution. The review of literature and findings of this study may serve to fill the void: centralized information for critical and effective consideration of funding alternatives and access alternatives. The objective of equitable state fund distribution can be achieved only with objective geographic access information. It is believed that using distance from a community college to a person's residence as the uniform determinant of geographic access may help to simplify the accessibility issue. The distribution of State dollars may be an effective way to analyze the equity issue. This study was committed to providing useful, centralized information to assist educators, public officials, and interested taxpayers, in identifying the most effective and efficient alternatives for funding and providing accessible community college programs in Michigan. Centralizing information assists decision makers in using the information as a readily available tool, rather than one which must be engineered and constructed before it can be 12 used. The approach and methods used in this study may be of value for comparative studies in other states. Research Questions How does the distribution of state funding of community colleges compare with population distribution in Michigan? This was the overarching research question of this study. Answering this question describes which localities and populations have access and which are lacking access to community colleges. Access was measured by distance between a locality and a community college. To answer this overarching question required collecting community college operating revenues data and population data, comparing these data, and analyzing the information generated from the comparisons. classified into five categories: colleges operating revenues, The subquestions were (1) Michigan community (2) Michigan population distribution and community college access, (3) counties per- capita state funding for accessible community colleges, (4) community colleges per-capita state funding for populations with access, and (5) state funding and population shifts during the last 20 years affecting access. Michigan Community Colleges Operating Revenues 1. What dollar amounts of operating funds were received by each community college in Michigan in 1970, 1980, and 1990? A. What percentage of funding (general fund) for each school came from the State? 13 B. C. What came tax, What paid percentages of funding for each school from sources other than the State (local tuition, and "other")? percentage of students for each school "in-district" tuition? Michigan Population Distribution and Community College Access II. What was the population distribution by county and localities in 1990? A. B. To which community college/s residents of each county and have access within 25 miles? To which community college/s residents of each county and have access by extending the 50 miles? in 1990 did the the localities in 1990 did the the localities distance to within Counties Per-capita State Funding for Accessible Community Colleges III. IV. What was the Michigan per-capita dollar amount of State funds for all 29 community colleges in 1990? What were the county per-capita amounts of State funds for each of the 83 counties in Michigan for 1990? What was the deviation from the mean for each county? Community Colleges Per-capita State Funding for Populations with Access V. What was the per-capita funding of each of the 29 community colleges for populations within 25 miles and 50 miles of each college? What was the deviation from the mean for each community college? State Funding and Population Shifts during the Last 20 Years Affecting Access VI. Have any significant shifts occurred from 1970 to 1990 in State population distribution or State funding distribution which may have affected accessibility? 14 Delimitations The following are delimitations of the study: 1. Private two-year colleges and other proprietary schools are not a part of this study. While such institutions may provide overlapping services or may have been instituted to fill gaps where community college services were not extended, they do not receive state support and thus were not included here. 2. This study includes only those schools receiving community college funding from the State of Michigan. Thus, four-year institutions which may provide common or similar programs to community colleges were not included. The four- year universities do not receive any State community college funds, restrict enrollment, have higher tuition/fees, and do not qualify for the State categorical community college grants (Pawlovich, 1991). None of the four-year universities was used in the data analysis of this study to describe the distribution of community colleges and State funding compared with population distribution. Their role in filling a community college service void, however, is acknowledged in this study and in the conclusions drawn. As explained in the review of literature, findings, and conclusions, the inclusion of some four-year schools may be a contributing factor for contradictory accessibility data. 3. The funding and acessibility data analyzed in this study were limited to the State of Michigan. No perceived extension of the findings to other states exists. One of 15 the needs for this research is grounded in the uniqueness of state community college programs and the need for information in Michigan. The marketing philosophy (looking at the demand side) and methods employed in this research may serve as a model for analyzing accessibility in other states. Limitations 1. This study was not intended to imply by the research questions that community college services should be equally distributed. The question of equity compared with equality of distribution of funds and accessibility is one of the major issues discussed with the data analysis and conclusions. 2. The State funding data reported and analyzed were drawn from records of the Michigan Department of Education, the Department of Management and Budget, and legislative records. United States 1990 Census data for counties and localities were used for demographics. The accuracy of this information is dependent on the methods employed by their researchers and reporters. Some of the reports originate with the individual community colleges in Michigan. Auditing standards are imposed for control, but the accuracy of the reports received and the review to which the reports are subjected are at the scrutiny of the Department of Education, the Department of Management and Budget, and the other reporting agencies. 16 3. Public aid to education in recent years has been channeled directly to students in addition to institutions. The effects of direct aid to students are not included in the tuition revenue data. Direct aid to students affects all sources of funding and is discussed in the data analysis and conclusions of this study. Definition of Terms JUNIOR COLLEGE: Two-year schools which were an extension of a high-school or schools established by the public school district/s. The first two-year institutions were titled junior colleges. Only one public, two- year college in Michigan uses "Junior College" in its name, Grand Rapids Junior College. Junior colleges are included in the current term "community colleges." Junior colleges were originally extensions of K-12 systems. COMMUNITY COLLEGE: Two-year schools offering post-secondary education. The name reflects the trend to offer more than post-secondary education as an extension of a K-12 system (Diener, 1986). These schools have expanded to include the delivery of technical training programs,job-training programs, adult education programs, community-enrichment courses, and 17 programs targeted to specific groups such as single-parent programs and women's centers. ACCESSIBLE: Geographic location within commuting distance. Distances of 25 miles and 50 miles from the location of a community college to a county/locality of residency were used to derive two sets of accessibility data. Many factors other than distance affect accessibility. These factors are discussed, along with the derivation of the 25-mile and 50-mile measures in the design and findings of this study. The term accessible, itself, is subjective and depends on many variables as discussed in the findings of this study, PUBLIC COLLEGES: control and funding sources from tax revenues including local, state, and federal taxation. Schools are classified as either public or private; the latter being funded and controlled by sources other than public tax revenues and public officials. EFFECTIVE: That which meets stated objectives. EFFICIENT: That which meets the intended objectives at the lowest possible cost. 18 EQUITY: Fairness based on agreed-upon criteria. Equity and equality are not synonymous. EQUALITY: Two or more factors of the same value based on determinants. FUNDING: To support with resources; a fiscal sanctioning. GENERAL FUND: The account or collection of accounts in which the revenues and expenses of an agency are reported. The general funds of community colleges are credited for the revenues received from public sources and tuition/fees and debited for operating expenses. LOCALITY: A city, village, or township. To be consistent with available United States census data, it was necessary to use city and township (includes villages) polxLlcal boundarres, rather than geographic townships. Organization and Overview of the Study In Chapter One an introduction to the topic of community college state funding and accessibility was followed by a statement of the research problem, the research questions, an explanation of the need for the study, the delimitations and limitations of the study, and a definition of terms. 19 Chapter Two contains a review of the literature related to the research problem. The literature review includes a background of community colleges in the United States and in Michigan with emphasis on the development of the accessibility issue and funding. A synopsis of services offered by community colleges and the trends in program offerings are included. Community college trends in other states are included to show how Michigan's two-year colleges compare with other states. A review of the limited research conducted relative to accessibility to community colleges and trends in financing community colleges is included. Background statements on each of the 29 community colleges are in Appendix A. In Chapter Three the research design and methodology are presented. How the background information, demographic and funding data were collected and analyzed is reported. Worksheets were used for computer data entry. The data entry worksheet for the 29 community colleges and a sample data entry worksheet for the counties and localities in Michigan are in Appendix B. Documentation for the computer program follows in Appendix C. The research findings and data analysis are in Chapter Four. The summary tables and charts generated from this research comparing distribution of State funds for community colleges with population distribution are included in Chapter Four. The computer printouts for each of the 20 counties/localities and community colleges in Michigan required over 400 pages. Therefore, the summary tables are presented, but the computer printouts remain in files with the researcher. Copies were given to the Michigan Department of Education, Community Colleges Service Unit, and the Department of Management and Budget, Community Colleges Unit. Samples of the computer printouts are in Appendix B. Chapter Five contains a summary of the research, conclusions, recommendations, and recommendations for further research. CHAPTER 2 Review of the Literature Introduction The study of community college access and state funding distribution is based on the tenet that community colleges serve the purpose of providing post-secondary education within commuting distance at a low cost to the student (Monroe, 1972 and Root, 1990). The development of this principle and a review of related research follow. First, the purpose and growth of community colleges in the United States is traced. The growth of community colleges, called "The Great American Invention" (Diener, 1985), and the expanded role of community colleges have required changes in financing sources. The "community" role of community colleges and related research show the current, multi-faceted comprehensive community college. Examples cite the variety of services, beyond traditional post­ secondary education, which are available to people with access to community college campuses. Next, the development of community colleges and research related to accessibility in Michigan have been summarized. Last, national and state trends in financing community colleges are summarized, and research studies related to funding are reported. 21 22 The Purpose and Growth of Community Colleges in the United States The two great innovations in higher education in the United States according to Deegan (1985) have been the landgrant movement of the nineteenth century and the community college movement of the twentieth century. The conclusions of Deegan and Tillery defined the accessibility objective: It became national policy for higher education to be open to able young persons from all segments of the population. . . . The community college movement began the great transformation into a learning society in which each person who wishes to do so can study almost any subject in almost any geographical community. (p. vii) Community college institutions have developed through five generations: The extension of the high school (1900 - 1930), the junior college generation (1930 - 1950), the community college generation (1950 - 1970), and the comprehensive community college (1970 - mid 1980s). The current fifth generation is described by Deegan and Tillery, in their descriptive research to compare the live generations, as a period of reexamination of the community college paradigm and a generation of reconceptualization. The First Generation In 1851, Henry Tappan, President of the University of Michigan insisted, "Universities would not become true research and professional development centers until they relinquished their lower division preparatory work" and Brawer, p. 6). (Cowen Tappan was supported by William Folwell, 23 President of the University of Minnesota, and William Mitchell, a University of Georgia trustee. William Folwell contended that youths should be permitted to reside in their homes until they had 'reached a point, say, somewhere near the end of the sophomore year' (quoted in Koos, 1924, p. 343). Arguments in favor of a new institution to accommodate students through their freshman and sophomore years were fueled by the belief that the transition from adolescence to adulthood typically occurred at the end of a person's teens (Cohen and Brawer, p. 9). Thus community colleges were bred from a variety of commitments, one of which was access from residence. The first junior colleges were encouraged by a group of university presidents, led by William Rainey Harper of the University of Chicago. In 1900, the University dubbed the lower division of the new university a "junior college." Michigan, Minnesota, and California University presidents joined with Harper to encourage high schools to offer postgraduate courses which would free the universities for advanced study and encourage broader post-secondary education for the people. an elitist. Harper might now be described as He wrote, "Students not really fitted by nature could stop naturally and honorably at the end of the sophomore year" p. 5). (1900, p.37, quoted in Deegan and Tillery, This same quote was attributed to Eells (1931), by Cohen and Brawer (p. 9). Cohen and Brawer claim that these attitudes account for the growth of higher education branching off into two-year institutions. Their research showed that the states could have accommodated most of the people seeking college 24 attendance by expanding universities' capacities, and that is what some states did. The increase in demand for post­ secondary education forced expansion. Through the evolution of community colleges, a high percentage of this demand was met. The 30 percent of the age group graduating from high school in 1924 grew to 75 percent by 1960 . . . 6 0 percent of the 1960 graduates entered college. . . 45 percent [60 percent of 75 percent] of the eighteen-year-olds entered college in 1960, up from 5 percent in 1910. . . high-school graduation rates stabilized at 72-75 percent in the 70s and 1980s. (p. 5) In the early years it is also noteworthy that private, two-year schools outnumbered public (59 percent private in 1929-30), but that trend reversed in 1947-48, and in 198687, only 13 percent were private (Palmer, 1987). During these early years, Breneman and Nelson (1981) reported various educators proposed a ''6-4-4" plan for public schooling which would have added two years beyond grades 11 and 12 and emphasized vocational education in years 11 and 12. Breneman and Nelson explained that two-year institutions evolved in a bewildering variety of ways: One result of this diversity in form and function is that disagreement exists over such basic questions as what constitutes a community college and how many of them there are. In addition to free-standing, public, two-year colleges, there are technical institutes and two-year branches of university campuses. Some argue that the latter two groups should not be counted as community colleges. Reporting practices of the states 25 differ on these matters and the two main sources of national data, the National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES) and the American Association of Community and Junior Colleges (AACJC) follow different definitions. The result is a substantial discrepancy in reported data from these two sources, with the AACJC figures being most inclusive. (p. 7) The foregoing helped to explain the conflicting data often encountered by this researcher in the literature relative to community college growth and programs. The colleges of the early 1900s used high-school facilities, and teachers taught in a manner similar to highschool teaching. Local school boards had authority under several legislative and administrative patterns (Deegan and Tillery, 1985). The first doctoral dissertation describing the junior college movement was written in 1919 by McDowell, and he found that junior colleges were either growths of high schools to grades 13 and 14 or served to divert freshmen and sophomores from universities (Cohen and Brawer, p. 8). Remedial education was a function of the early junior colleges. Many students stayed in school to make up for deficiencies and improve writing and mathematics skills. Other students needed vocational instruction, without plans for transferring to senior colleges or universities. The high school extension colleges were serving new students (Deegan, p. 7). The first generation was summarized by Koos and reported by Deegan and Tillery (1985) as a period of modest 26 and hesitant development during which foundations for the future were established: The idea of the intermediate colleges was conceived by some of America's greatest educators; communities and states recognized the growing demand for access to higher education; and community services, so dear to the fourth generation, found their roots in the traditions of the community schools. (p. 8) Public, two-year colleges grew in number from zero in 1900 to 178 in 1930 (Cohen and Brawer, 1989). The Second Generation From 1930 to 1950, California, Michigan, Illinois, and Texas had major junior college developments. Eells book, The Junior College, was used by states and localities as a guideline for establishing community colleges. The American Association of Community Colleges' professional and lobbying services served to further the two-year schools' goals. Koos and Whitney analyzed the purposes of junior colleges and Kemp (1930) summarized the goals as follows: 1. The offering of two years of work acceptable to the university; 2. The providing of occupational programs of junior college grade; 3. The completing of education for students not going on; 4. The popularizing of higher education through propinquity of opportunity for higher education at less cost to parents; 5. The offering of work which meets local needs; 6. The continuing of the home influence during immaturity. (p. 189) 27 After World War I, curriculum emphasis was "popularized" in junior colleges by concentrating on improvement of instruction over that available in universities, training for social leadership, and increased attention to the individual needs and interests of students (Palinczak, p. 30). Decreased enrollments caused by the Great Depression and the involvement of human resources and spending for World War II efforts, according to Palinczak, left the democratization of higher education dormant. But, the democratization of higher education suddenly became a reality at the end of World War II. Organized labor supported junior colleges: At its 1943 convention in Boston, the American Federation of Labor adopted the following resolutions: Resolved, that the American Federation of Labor go on record in favor of the junior college as a means of offering opportunity for higher education to all young people of this nation with limited resources; and be it futher resolved, that the American Federation of Labor promote suitable activities tending to encourage the establishment of such educational facilities throughout the entire nation (Johnson, 1944, as quoted in Palinczak, p. 31). After World War II, Palinczak found that junior college programs began to reflect an involvement with public need and community service and they served the needs of veterans. These needs encouraged more comprehensive programs and multi-purpose junior colleges. Strayer in 1948, Survey of the Needs of California in Higher education, stated the goals and objectives of twoyear colleges as social policy. The doctrine for the 28 mission of public two-year colleges included "(1) terminal education, (2) general education, orientation and guidance, (3) transfer and career (4) lower-division preparation, (5) adult education, and (6) removal of matriculation deficiencies1' (Deegan and Tillery, p. 9). Deegan and Tillery refer to California as a leader in the development of two-year schools and state that not only did the language of the objectives of junior colleges change, but so did the priorities in institutional missions and practices. From 1930 to 1950 general education, student services, and guidance grew in importance in community colleges. A 1937 study of students entering junior colleges showed that 75 percent of the students did not continue beyond the sophomore year (Eells, 1941). students." These were termed "terminal Tillery's studies (1970) showed that transfer rates barely represented minimal estimates because of the "stop-out" patterns of junior college attendance. Deegan and Tillery (1985) believed that these trends continued and that local availability affected two-year college programs and transfer rates. It was easier for students to study, temporarily concentrate on something else, then revert to study as time and circumstances permitted. The Third Generation The period of 1950 to 1970 marked the period of greatest growth and expansion. colleges broadened. The mission of community The expansion of the junior college and 29 emergence of community colleges was described by Palinczak (1973) as follows: The community college is not a junior college— it is more. Designed to provide educational services to all people, not just the academically fit. This institution operates in the public interest with an equal access philosophy that is in need of further development and analysis. . . . The community college is a direct manifestation of public will and it owes its allegiance to citizens and taxpayers. It attempts to fill an educational void not filled by other institutions and, in so doing, becomes a social agency with an open door to further the democratization of society. (p. 3) The Carnegie Commission on Higher Education (1970) stated, "The most striking recent structural development in higher education has been the phenomenal growth of the community college" (p. 3). The number of students in two- year colleges grew from 500,000 to 2,000,000 in the United States from 1950 to 1970 (Deegan and Tillery, p. 12). The number of public, two-year colleges grew from 328 in 1950 to 847 in 1970 (AACJC, Palmer, 1987, as cited in Cohen and Brawer, p. 11). In 1971 Medsker and Tillery stated that the phenomenal growth of two-year colleges had resulted in a category of uniquely American institutions. They stated that community colleges were unique in that they all received tax support, while junior colleges were both private and public (p. 1). They termed the growth of community colleges as ranging from "expansion" in the first fifty years of the twentieth century to "explosion" during the 19 60s and 70s: Their location close to the homes of potential students, their nonselective admissions policies, 30 and their tendency to offer a variety of programs (many of which lead directly to employment rather than to a baccalaureate degree) have made community colleges the most significant of all higher institutions in extending educational opportunity. The presence of a public two-year college in a community means that a much higher proportion of high school graduates from lower socioeconomic or ability levels can continue their education than could in a community with no college at all. For some students, community colleges provide a "second chance" and, by their (presumably) nontraditional approach, a variety of programs. Such colleges now [1971] enroll a far greater number of student groups hitherto underrepresented in higher education than do other types of colleges, and they will soon assume a decidedly more important role in this regard. (p. 11) Medsker and Tillery believed that during the 1950s and 60s the two-year college became known as the "people's college" but became part of an educational network. The vague and lingering distinctions made between postsecondary and higher education now served only as bureaucratic conveniences for state and local agencies of education. . . . The public two-year college merged its parochial efforts with those of four-year institutions to bring to the local community the full thrust of comprehensive postsecondary education. (p. 15) Both programming and enrollments increased nationally during the 1950s and 60s, but it is important to note that the seven "pacesetter states" (including Michigan) accounted for most of this growth. The geographic development of community colleges in the United states has been very uneven and heavily concentrated in relatively few states. . . Nevertheless, all the 50 states have public twoyear colleges. Seven states (California, New York, Illinois, Michigan, Florida, Texas, and Washington) acccounted for more than two-thirds of all enrollments in 1968 and over one-third of all public community colleges (Medsker and Tillery, 1971, p. 22). 31 Medsker and Tillery's research showed that in these seven states, two-year colleges accounted for over 30 percent of total post-secondary college/university enrollment. Fourteen other states had substantial development, with 20 to 30 percent of enrollment in two-year schools: Arizona, Georgia, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wyoming. Approximately 16 of the remaining states had made a start in community college development with 10 to 20 percent enrollments in two-year colleges. Thirteen states had done little toward developing public, two-year colleges. Nevada, South Dakota, Maine, New Hampshire and Indiana had between 0 and 5 percent two-year enrollment; while Alaska, District of Columbia, New Mexico, Tennessee, Arkansas, Utah, West Virginia, Nebraska, and Louisiana had from 6 to 10 percent of two-year college enrollments. Medsker and Tillery's research, reported in Breaking the Access Barriers (1971), was conducted to determine the need for additional community colleges in the United states. They reported the following and recommended 500 additional community colleges: If there is to be a community college within commuting distance of every potential student, except in sparsely populated areas, new colleges will have to be established in all but three states during the 1970s paralleling that of the previous decade. This would mean that new campuses would open at the rate of about one each week unless the two-year branch campuses of public 32 universities in several states develop truly comprehensive curricula. (p. 32) Eight to nine additional community colleges were recommended for Michigan; none have been added since 1970. The Fourth Generation The three major functions of community colleges— collegiate, career, and community— were expanded during the development of the comprehensive community college from 1970 through the mid 80s (Zwerling, 1986). From these traditional functions, however, several social functions became apparent. Many of these have been criticized. The more comprehensive goals, according to some researchers, have been defeated; thus, requiring a reexamination of the roles of community colleges. The investment of public funds in community colleges has supported far more than collegiate and career objectives. The expansion of the community role began in the late I9bus and continued through the 70s and raid 80s. The community and social roles of comprehensive community colleges can be seen specifically through some of the research findings. Jerome Karabel summarized his research findings in his article, "Community Colleges and Social Stratification in the 1980's" (1984): Some individuals who would otherwise have been excluded from higher education have used the community college for upward mobility. Yet the overall impact of the community college has been to accentuate rather than to reduce prevailing patterns of social and class inequality. (p. 13) 33 Karabel listed among his key findings that "community colleges constituted the bottom track of higher education's class-based system of interinstitutional stratification" (p. 15). He found attending a community college had the effect of reducing the probability that a given individual would obtain a bachelor's degree; and that the impact of attending a two-year college, as opposed to a four-year college, on income and occupational status was negative. He concluded that open-access community colleges accentuated existing class differences because of the disproportionate high number of working class and minority students. He acknowledged that community colleges made attendance possible for some individuals who would otherwise never have enrolled in higher education, but he found that existing class differences had been reproduced during community college expansion. He termed the growing prominence of vocational education the "community college transformation." Fred Pincus stated in his article, "Vocational Education: More False Promises," (1984) that vocational programs were more apt to benefit local businesses' interests than students' interests. Pincus cited Breneman and Nelson's 1981 national study of high school graduates. They found that attending community colleges increased chances of being employed but decreased occupational status. Wilm's (1980) research in four metropolitan areas showed that women in lower-status programs (secretary, dental assistant, and cosmetology) had an increased 34 likelihood of placement in jobs for which they were trained. Women enrolled in higher status programs (accounting, computer programming, and electronic technology) had not been placed in one related position, and only a minority of the men were placed in related positions. Community college supporters argue that these studies look only at vocational students, not transfer students and that the transfer-vocational/terminal distinction is obsolete. Most importantly, over 20 studies cited by Zwerling show the community development and social functions of community college programming in serving the needs of the disadvantaged. Businesses benefit from being near a community college. State funding and federal vocational funds for social programs are channeled to community colleges for minority programs, single-parent programs, child-care subsidies, and economic development programs. The latter are often connected with job training, retraining, and placement. Community college facilities in many states house program administrative offices. The 1963 Vocational Education Act and the amendments of 1968 and 1972 augmented the federal funds available to community colleges. The Carl D. Perkins Vocational Education Act of 1984 modified the guidelines further, primarily to determine the state responsibility for administering the funds and to expand the programs directed to handicapped and disadvantaged students (Cohen and Brawer, 1989, p. 206). 35 Cohen and Brawer summarized community education as follows: The broadest of all community college functions, embraces adult education, adult basic education, continued education, contract training, community services, and community based education. . . . Community education may be sponsored by the college, by some other agency using college facilities, or jointly. . . . Various forms of community education usually are fully supported by participant fees, grants, or contract with external organizations. Participants tend to have short-term goals . . . they are usually older than traditional students . . . many have never completed high school . . . many of them hold baccalaureate or graduate degrees. They usually attend the course or activities intermittently and part-time . . . program managers design activities accordingly. (p. 257) The AACJC (American Association for Community and Junior Colleges) Commission on higher education issued the following statement in 1988, as quoted by Cohen and Brawer: The community college, at its best, can be a center for problem-solving in adult illiteracy or the education of the disabled. It can be a center for leadership training, too. It can also be the place where education and business leaders meet to talk about the problems of displaced workers. It can bring together agencies to strengthen services for minorities, working women, single parent heads of households, and unwed teenage parents. It can coordinate efforts to provide day care, transportation, and financial aid. The community college can take the lead in long-range planning for community development. And it can serve as the focal point for improving the quality of life in the inner city. (p. 259) Cohen and Brawer say that this is a large order, but the Commission is dedicated to fostering community colleges as centers of community life. Many of the 77 recommendations in the Commission's 1988 report follow the theme of community. "The term community should be defined 36 not only as a region to be served, but also as a climate to be created" (p. 3), the commission said. The Fifth Generation During the last five years, community colleges have continued to operate comprehensively. Cohen and Brawer (1988) concluded: The overarching concept of community education is certainly justifiable; few would quibble with the intent of an institution to upgrade its entire community rather than merely to provide a limited array of courses for people aged eighteen to twenty-one. However, the total seems less than the sum of its parts. The components of community education must be addressed separately in order to understand its scope and effect. Are all segments of equal value? Who decides what shall be presented and who shall pay for it? (p. 160) The recommendations of AACJC just cited show the myriad of community college programs and the choices to be made. The issue of geographic access to community colleges gains impetus when viewed from the standpoint of all that is or may be centered at a community college campus. Michigan is viewed as a strong community college state (Deegan and Tillery, 1985 and Palinczak, 1973). Next, the issue of access and development of community colleges in Michigan is presented with related research. Community Colleges in Michigan Michigan's community colleges have developed from an integrated effort: Individual school districts, citizens' groups, independent study groups, the State of Michigan 37 Department of Public Instruction (Department of Education), the Governor's office, and community college organizations. Background statements on the 29 community colleges in Michigan are in Appendix A. All of Michigan's community colleges were established between 1914 and 1969 (Michigan Department of Education, 1990). 1900 to 1930 Grand Rapids Junior College was the first public, twoyear college in Michigan. It was established in 1914 and was located in the Grand Rapids Central High School building. The founding followed a resolution passed by the faculty of the University of Michigan encouraging the establishment of junior colleges in larger cities (1989-90 College Catalog, Grand Rapids Junior College, p. 9). By 1940 nine junior colleges were established by school districts: Grand Rapids, Highland Park, Bay City, Port Huron, Flint, Muskegon, Jackson, Gogebic, and Henry Ford (Dearborn). Wayne State University established a two-year branch which received community college appropriations beginning in 1933, but this branch was not separately classified as a community college (Russell, 1957). The first enabling act by the Michigan Legislature was passed in 1917. The people of Highland Park were strong in their support of this legislation (Dunbar, 1963). The law authorized the Board of Education in any school district with a population or 30,000 or more to offer advanced 38 courses to high-school graduates (Public Acts of 1917, No. 146). Public Acts 230 and 295 of 1929 set this number at 25,000, (Public Acts of 1923, No. 138 had temporarily set the number at 18,000) but also provided for establishing a junior college by referendum in cities or districts of less than 25,000, if petitioned by 10 percent of the city's voters. In 1955 the population requirement was changed to 10,000 for school board authorization (Public Act 269). The University of Michigan was instrumental in the development of the Bay City Junior College in 1922 by authorizing a junior college accreditation committee to approve courses and instructors and provide for students' admission to the University as juniors (Dunbar, 1963). The role of junior colleges in Michigan was to provide students with two years of preparatory work to transfer to a senior university. This paralleled the national concept. 1930 to 1950 The Great Depression hampered expansion during the 30s. From 1940 to 1957 only five additional schools were established: Community College and Technical Institute (Benton Harbor), Northwestern Michigan College (Traverse City), Alpena Community College, South Macomb Community College, and Battle Creek Community College (Russell, 1957). Growth in Michigan was spurred by several factors following World War II. According to McLean and Porter (1979) the concept of community colleges in Michigan was attributed to national influence from the President's 39 Commission on Higher Education. In 1947 the Commission broadened the purpose of junior colleges to community junior colleges: Whatever form the community college takes, its purpose is educational service to the entire community, and this purpose requires a variety of functions and programs. It will provide college education for the youth of the community, so as to remove geographical and economic barriers to educational opportunities and discover individual talents at low cost and easy access. In addition, the community college will attempt to meet the total post-secondary school needs of its community. (p. 2) This definition was used by the Michigan Department of Public Instruction as the foundation for defining the three basic elements of community colleges: (1) equal access to education for all persons in the community, (2) the removal of geographic and economic barriers which prohibit persons from benefiting from the services, and (3) the reasonable opportunity for the individual to discover and develop his or her talents at low cost. (p. 2) In their 1979 document, "Statewide Community College Services," Porter (Superintendent of Public Instruction) and McLean (Chairperson of the State Board for Public Community and Junior Colleges), attributed the rapid development of community colleges during the 50s and 60s and the more comprehensive nature of community colleges to the Michigan's adoption of these three objectives. 1950 to 1970 Act No. 189, 1951, changed the title from "junior" to "community" colleges and recognized the functions of vocational and terminal programs. From 1956 to 1969 40 fourteen community colleges were established, bringing the total to 29, the same number operating in 1990. The Russell Study of 1957 and 1958 was published in a 1958 report, The Survey of Public Education in Michigan. Russell's report strongly supported community college development and expansion to address the need for increased access. Staff Study No. 1 . a 210-page, preliminary report by Russell, published in 1957 analyzed all two-year public institution enrollments and accessibility in Michigan. Russell used 25-mile radii in Southern Michigan and 35-mile radii in Northern Michigan (north of Clare) to determine accessibility. Six access studies were cited by Russell showing decreased likelihood of college attendance beginning at a 15-mile distance (pp. 67 - 72). Russell's recommendations in 1958 used three criteria to determine demand: county population along with the number of people aged 18-22 (1,000+ 18 - 19 and 2,000+ 19 22) and size of school district (800+ students in grades 9 12). The location of public schools was considered next, and those counties in which supply fell short of demand and geographic access was a barrier were listed with recommendations for establishing a community college. These criteria assumed that the most likely community college students were of traditional high-school graduation age. Russell's recommendations included the following: Whatever the number of new community colleges might finally be, this survey recommends that the long-range goal of educational planning in the 41 state be the location of a community college where a concentration of population without adequate service of the community college sort is sufficiently large to warrant establishing one. As a general rule the evidence in Michigan is that minimum concentration of population can be determined by application of the three criteria in this survey. (p.112) Two priority groupings listed the counties' needs. Group number one with schools, but needing additional locations— Macomb County (Mt. Clemens), Oakland County (one in Pontiac and one in Royal Oak), Wayne County (one in Livonia, Grosse Pte., Royal Oak, and Lincoln Park, and three more in Detroit City). Also in group number one without schools were Lapeer, Midland, Monroe, and Saginaw counties. Chippewa County met all three criteria and had only a branch of Michigan College of Mining and Technology. Russell noted, "The analysis of programs of less-thanbachelor's degree length that was made as a part of the Survey showed that neither the Sault Ste. Marie Branch nor its parent institution had done much to develop these programs. In this sense, it is falling short of its potential of becoming a fully effective community college" (1979, p. 117). Russell further recommended that a study be done to determine the need for either a community college operating under the community college laws of the State or the expansion of the branch in Chippewa County. Nine other counties met two of the three criteria: Allegan, Clinton, Delta, Huron, Ionia, St. Joseph, Sanilac, 42 Tuscola, and Van Buren. Allegan /VanBuren and Ionia/Clinton are adjoining pairs, and Russell recommended only one school for each of the pairs of counties. One college was recommended for the adjoining thumb counties of Huron, Tuscola, and Sanilac; and Owosso county had only a private college and met all three criteria. A second priority grouping took into account school districts with over 800 students and without a community college, and geographic areas too far from a community college (Emmet/Charlevoix/Cheboygan/Otsego, Mason/ Manistee/Oceana, and Wexford/Missaukee/Osceola). He recommended one school for each of these adjoining sets of counties. In total Russell recommended 23 additional community colleges to be in the first priority grouping to serve 27 counties in Michigan, and an additional 13 desirable locations or locations requiring further study for the second priority grouping. Kutibbii' s t>i_Uuy Wab by ior the most cciuprehcnsxvc study of community college accessibility that has been done in Michigan. After Russell's study 15 community colleges were established. It is difficult to compare these with his recommendations because of the extension of existing community college districts. The counties still without a community college which he recommended be established or studied are shown in the findings of this research. Russell's findings and recommendations are cited extensively in most of the Michigan reports on community 43 college organizations, administration, and funding. The notes of constitutional convention delegates working on the 1963 Michigan Constitution reflect the importance of his study. State Legislation and Proposals The Michigan Constitution of 1963 (Article 8, Section 7) and Public Act 331, 1966 (The Community College Act) were most significant in forming the concepts of community college services. The Constitution created a State Board for Public Community and Junior Colleges to advise the State Board of Education on the supervision, planning, and appropriations for support of community colleges. The constitution also provided for locally elected Boards to supervise and control college operations. The Community College Act replaced 15 prior community college laws in Michigan ('Michigan Compiled Laws. Annotated. 1988, p. 865) . The 1908 Michigan Constitution did not require or provide for the creation of community colleges, but the 1963 Michigan Constitution mandated state-supported community colleges and provided for taxation to support the community colleges, with the maximum rate approved by voters. The tuition rates were to be established by the locally elected Boards. The Community College Act provided for the cooperative effort of school districts and/or counties not already in a community college district to join with others and by 44 referendum and authorization of the State Board of Education establish a community college. Following the Community College Act, the State Board for Public Community and Junior Colleges published a position statement that served as a foundation for State Board of Education policies and proposals. These were expressed in the 1969 State Plan for Higher Education. The policy statement as cited by McLean and Porter follows: It is the policy of the State Board of Education that all its policies, positions, and decisions affecting comprehensive community college services shall be done with the advice and assistance of the State Board for Public Community and Junior Colleges and after consultation with the local boards of the public community and junior colleges. The State Board of Education should continue to request the advice and assistance of the State Board for Public Community and Junior colleges concerning general supervision, planning, and annual appropriations for the support of the institutions' services. This should include, but not be limited to: — Institutional Access Open Door Admissions Policies Low Tuition « ■ ■ * * »'“'v*<-*vn V> i r* 1 D r> • » — Comprehensive Community College Programs Occupational Education General Education and the Liberal Arts Developmental Education Continuing and Community Service Education Professional Development — Finance. (pp. 5 - 6 ) In 1968 the State Board for Community and Junior Colleges, based on the Community College Act (331 of 1966) recommended that no more than 32 districts be established using the following guidelines: existing districts should be enlarged before establishing new districts, Lower 45 Peninsula's districts should have a minimum full-time equated enrollment of 1,000 students, minimum local tax per student should be $400, a significant population center should be in each district, access highways to college campuses should be improved, colleges should be within reasonable commuting distance, overlapping service areas should be avoided, districts should be based on cultural ties and socio-economic ties to the community. The 29 community colleges were expected to serve most of the Lower Peninsula. (Exceptions were made for Huron/Tuscola/ Sanilac counties and Ottawa/Allegan counties.) The McLean and Porter report, "Statewide Community College Services," listed several policy statements. statement specifically related to access follows: The "Every resident of the State should have access to community college services. All geographical areas of the State should be included in independent community college districts and no Michigan resident should be subjected to non-resident or out-of-district tuition or fee charges at any community college the student elects to attend" (p.14). Their report also stated the following policy regarding open admissions: "Community and junior colleges should admit any high school graduate or person eighteen years of age and any other out-of school person and counsel with him or her about the programs or courses for which the student is prepared and may benefit" (p. 10). This open-door policy 46 was cited by McLean and Porter from the 1970 State Plan for Education. and this characteristic differentiates the junior/community college from public, four-year institutions with specific entrance requirements. In 1971 the Michigan Community College Association issued a report, "Statewide Community College Services in Michigan." This reported the research conducted and recommendations for redistricting in Michigan. recommendations were as follows: The to place all areas of the state within identified community college districts, to maintain the integrity and independence of the existing 29 districts except in cases of mutual agreement between districts to realign service areas, and that two community college districts be added in Marquette/Alger counties and in Chippewa/Mackinac/Luce counties. All other district recommendations involved extending the existing boundaries of the 29 community colleges. A copy of the recommended community college districts, Figure 1, is on the following page as reproduced from the 1971 Michigan Community College Association's report. This redistricting plan and its recommendations are important because several legislative proposals were based on them: Senate Bill 1302 of 1972, Senate Bill 346 of 1973, Senate Bill 1080 (and substitute Bill 1060) of 1975, and Senate Bill 45/House Bill 4240 of 1977. Senate Bill 346 aligned the proposed 31 districts with political boundaries. None of these bills was passed. 47 Districts Gogebic Bay de Noc Marquette-Alger Luce-Mackinac-Chippewa North Central Michigan Alpena Kirtland Northwestern Michigan West Shore Mid Michigan Muskegon Grand Rapids Montcalm Delta St. Clair Macomb Oakland Genesee Washtenaw Monroe Jackson Lansing Kellogg Glen Oaks »-*oiooo 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. *1 O V Southwestern Michigan Lake Michigan Highland Park Henry Ford Schoolcraft Wayne County Figure 1 Recommended Statewide Community College Districts 48 Therefore, the Community College Act of 1966 remains in effect for community college districting and organizing (Folkening, 1991). Opposition to these bills varied. The requirement for community college boundaries to be coterminous with intermediate school district boundaries was one problem for some districts. Local boundary disputes were also a problem. Two different statewide millages of one mill (Senate Bill 45) and two mills (Senate Bill 346 and House Bill 4240) also met with opposition. Senate Bill 346 contained a "grandfather clause," which covered community colleges that already had more than a two-mill levy. funding was disputed. The level of needed Also, community college redistricting in the 70s was not a high legislative priority. The specification that community colleges have sole responsibility for vocational, post-secondary education in senate oiix I j u z caused conflict between seme secondary schools and colleges (Michigan Department of Education, 1990). The 1984 report, "Putting Our Minds Together: New Directions for Michigan Higher Education," issued by the Governor's (Blanchard) Commission on the Future of Higher Education in Michigan, again highlighted the importance of community college access: The issue of equal access to community colleges needs to be addressed. Currently, residents of counties outside of community college districts 49 are charged an out-of district rate to attend classes in a neighboring county. The commission recommends that the State Board of Education examine ways to expand in-district progamming, and make recommendations to the Governor and the state Legislature. (p.3) The 1985 Senate Select Committee on Higher Education, chaired by William A. Sederburg, placed a high priority on the contribution of community colleges in the areas of economic development and adult remedial education, but stated that the role of community colleges was becoming blurred with that of some K-12 functions and remedial programs at four-year institutions. The Committee report summary recommended that vocational education and remedial education be delegated to the community college in districts where one was present. In 1988 the State board for Public Community and Junior Colleges again focused on accessibility as a major issue. State Director of the Department of Education, Higher Education Management Services, Ronald Root, directed a study to determine "to what degree Michigan's citizens have equal access to postsecondary education." In his July 11, 1989, letter to community college presidents, Root referred to "community college districts and service areas." He stated, "As a result of their discussions, the Board has asked that data be collected and analyzed regarding Michigan's community college districts and service areas. . . .To our knowledge, complete information of this nature has not been available for 15-20 years, and then only at a superficial level of analysis." 50 Thus, a research study was commenced. "District" is defined statewide, but the term "service area" is defined by each school in accordance with its impressions of student sources. Neither measures accessibility by a uniform distance from a community college (Folkening, 1991). A Geographic Access Committee was formed and met during 1990. A June 8, 1990, memo and initial draft of a "Statewide Community College Services" report to committee members from Ronald Root stated the following: Why is the availability of a community college education so important? - 52% of all new jobs in the next decade will require some level of postsecondary education, yet only 31% of Michigan's adults have 13 or more years of schooling. -The average worker will need to be retrained at least three times during his/her work-life; community colleges are preferred for retraining because they are close to home. -The average tuition charge to non-resident community college students is 32% higher than to residents of the district. -The average age of a community college student is 29;p most of these students have occupational or family commitments which necessitate that they remain at home. -Some national experts estimate that 20% of all adults are functionally illiterate, a figure that translates to 1.3 million citizens in Michigan; community colleges are prepared to serve this need. -Michigan community colleges serve the broadest range of students, from ages 18 to 80 and including students of all racial, ethnic and socio-economic backgrounds. Who is left out? - Approximately 50% of the geographic area of the state is not covered by a community college district. -21% of Michigan's citizens live outside a community college district. 51 -48% of Michigan's school districts are not in a community college district. -138,837 students each year attend a community college and pay the higher non-resident tuition rates. - 22% of the state's property tax base is not included in a community college district. (pp. 3 - 4 ) A statewide, two-mill levy was recommended by the Geographical Access Committee, with statewide redistricting along city, county, and township political boundaries, without affecting current boundaries. Five exceptions to this were required to align with city, county, and township boundaries, and all but four community colleges would have gained new territory. This plan did not recommend any new districts, but branches of existing community colleges were recommended to meet the needs of those geographic areas too far from an existing community college. As an example two branches of North Central Community College in Petoskey were recommended in Cheboygan and Sault Ste. Marie. In another preliminary report, March 6, 1990, prepared by the Michigan Department of Education, Higher Education Management Services, an "arbitrary measure of forty (40) miles was chosen to represent a reasonable driving distance to a comprehensive community college campus (p. 11)." A 30-mile radius circle was drawn around each of the 29 community colleges, to allow for driving variances with airline mileage. Three four-year state universities were added to the 29 community colleges, with the substantiation that these three universities— Ferris State, Lake Superior 52 State, and Northern Michigan University— were serving community college functions. These three universities have admissions requirements (not open-door admission) as verified with admissions officers at all three schools and the 1989-90 catalogs. Also, the self-defined term "service areas" was used in reference to community college access. A copy of the Michigan map with 30-mile radii of the community colleges and three universities, Figure 2, is on Page 53. It is important to note that these circles do not indicate districts. Page 54. A district map, Figure 3, follows on A map of self-defined "service areas" is not available (Folkening, 1991). The question still remains as to the number of people and identification of localities in Michigan within reasonable commuting distance or not within reasonable commuting distance. It is toward this need that the efforts and findings of this study were focused. The Geographic Access Committee's work at the point of the writing of this dissertation was discontinued or at the least interrupted. It was believed by state education administrators that a statewide millage proposal would not receive the required support (Folkening, Pawlovich, and Bernthal, 1991). The closing paragraph of the Committee's draft recommendations follows: The overriding goal of the state should be to continue progress toward achieving comprehensive community college services statewide. These yrislH Figure 2 Area Beyond 30-Mile Radii of a Michigan Community College (Including Ferris, NKU, LSSU) 54 1 A lpena C om m unity College 2 Hay de Noc C om m unity College 3 Delta College 4 C lcn Oaks C om m unity College 5 Gogebic Com m unity College 6 G rand Rapids junior College 7 H enry Ford C om m unity College 8 H ighland Tark C om m unity College 9 Jackson C om m unity College 10 Kalamazoo Valley C om m unity College 11 Kellogg C om m unity College 12 Kirtland C om m unity College 13 Lake Michigan College 14 Lansing C om m unity College 15 M acom b C om m unity College 16 Mid M ichigan C om m unity C ollege ‘.’•-IT -' 17 M onroe C ounty C om m unity College 18 M ontcalm C om m unity College 19 Mott C om m unity College 20 M uskegon C om m unity College 21 N orth C entral M ichigan College 22 N orthw estern M ichigan College 23 O akland C om m unity College 24 St. O a ir C ounty C o m m u n ity College 25 Schoolcraft College 26 S outhw estern M ichigan College 27 W ashtenaw C om m unity College 28 W ayne C ounty C o m m un ity C ollege 29 West Shore C om m unity C ollege. Figure 3 Community College Districts 1990 -27.:? 55 comprehensive services would contain three basic elements: (1) equal access to educational services for all persons in the community; (2) the removal of geographic and economic barriers which prohibit persons from benefiting from the services; and (3) the reasonable opportunity for the individual to discover and develop his or her talents at low cost. (p. 19) National and State Trends in Financing Community Colleges Community college financing has elements from both higher education and K-12 systems. The first public community colleges were extensions of a local public school system and were financed the same way as the school system (Garms, 1977). Cohen and Brawer's 1988 historic, national research showed that state aid and federal aid were at 0% in 1918 and 1930 surveys. By 1942 state aid was 28% of revenues, and this figure increased to 47% by 1986. Federal aid grew from 2% in 1942 to 10% in 1986. includes all funding, not just operating funds.) was reporuea in x^io, 8 decreased to 17% in 1986. m (This Local aid 1930, and this steadily Tuition and fees grew from 6% of revenues in 1918 to 16% in 1986 (p. 128). The trend of shifting support from local aid to state support and increasing tuition and fees is evident. This trend accounts for the emphasis on the issue of distribution of funds within a state. Cohen and Brawer cited studies by Augenblick in 1978, Richardson and Leslie in 1981 and Eells in 1931 to substantiate these trends. 56 The trend in the early development of junior colleges as extensions of secondary schools was a provision of an established amount per pupil from local tax revenues and public schools' budgets. A state adjustment became common to minimize the differences among districts of varying wealth. The public colleges have always operated in a political arena (Cowen and Brawer, 1988). Garms studied the 36 states and Puerto Rico for the years 1971-72. The 36 states accounted for 96% of the nation's community college students. At that time community college revenues were comprised of 5% federal funding, 44% state support, 33% local support, 14% tuition and fees, and 4% from other sources. Garms stated that these figures were comparatively misleading because of the inclusion of California, with the most developed community college system, and the only state not charging tuition. Adjusting for the inclusion of California, resulted in 20% of revenues from tuition anu fees. Statistics vary depending on the inclusion of revenues for capital expenditures and auxililary service expenditures along with operating revenues or the reporting of only operating revenues. The inclusion of California skews data means because of their highly developed system. As an example, in 1985-86 data listed in a study by Wattenbarger and Mercer (1988) showed that the operating revenues of community colleges in 57 California were $1.7 billion; the second highest state, Texas, was $757 million. Michigan ranked fifth with $413 million, and the amounts decreased rapidly to $314 million for the sixth ranked state to $14 million for West Virginia and none for South Dakota, the only state without community colleges. Wattenbarger and Mercer's comprehensive research is discussed in more detail later. During 1971-72 Michigan's community college revenues were accounted for as follows: 3% federal, 40% State, 26% local, 26% tuition, and 5% from other sources. The means reported by 44 states and Puerto Rico were 6% federal, 51% state, 19% local, 20% tuition, and 4% from other sources. Although only California charged no tuition, three other states received less than 10% of their revenues from tuition— Arizona, 4%; North Carolina, 7%; and Wisconsin 6%. Sixteen states reported no local tax revenue supporting community colleges. In those states, financing plans for community colleges followed more closely the plans for fouryear institutions with an increase in revenues from the states. Garms' research showed that California community colleges received 58% of their support from local taxes, and four other states received over 40% of their revenues from local sources. In 1988 Wattenbarger and Mercer conducted another comprehensive study with the states by questionnaire to 58 compare policies and procedures in financing community colleges. Using 1985-86 data, the means for the 43 reporting states (7 states comprising 3% of national community college enrollment did not respond) were as follows: state, 59%; local 16%; tuition and fees, 19%; federal and other sources 6%. All 43 reporting states provide support to colleges, but only 26 states reported local community colleges. community tax support of The 16% is the mean for all 43. If the 17 receiving no local tax support, are disregarded, the mean for the 26 remaining is 24.5%. All reporting states showed revenue from tuition and fees. California by 1985-86 was reporting 4% of its community college revenues from student fees (pp. 9 - 10). Financing of junior colleges in the early years was done on a K-12, per-pupil basis for those schools with junior colleges. — ..i. _ _ i bUHUUX dlU ----i. duu In 1947, the legislature included in the _ _ dll appiupi xauxun districts maintaining a college. ui y nort ;w vw wv ^ u The amount was distributed on a full-time enrollment (FTE) basis (Dunbar, 1963). This increased to $800,000 by 1954, and by 1960 almost 60 percent of the operating income was coming from state appropriations. In 1956 legislation, Act No. 156 and Act No. 226, affected the funding of community colleges. The first 59 provided for $190 per FTE, and the latter provided for capital outlays for community colleges (Dunbar, 1963). Philip J. Gannon summarized the reasons for the growing financial support of community colleges in Michigan in his article, "Fifty Years of Community Involvement in Michigan," in Junior Colleges; 50 States/50 Years, published in 1969 by the American Association of Junior Colleges. Gannon stated that George Romney, who had been a delegate to the Constitutional Convention, was elected governor of Michigan in 1962. His commitment to higher education and the recommendations of the citizens' committee he appointed resulted in a $7 million appropriation for the operation of community colleges in 1965, with $4 million for capital outlay. This equaled $234 per FTE student, and this was increased to $275 the following year, with over $11 million appropriated. In the 50s, as previously cited, legislation provided for the communion of school districts in establishing community colleges. This, plus the importance of community colleges in the 60s, gained from the revision of state laws through the 1963 Community College Act, resulted in growing state financial support. The impact of the Russell study in 1957 and 1958 also drew attention to the funding of community colleges. Of Russell's 45 recommendations for higher education in Michigan, 18 dealt with the need for additional community college services and funding. 60 The rapid rise in tuition was a trend contrary to the philosophy of community colleges. This affected the legislature's support of increased state financing (Gannon, 1969) . State support grew to 47% in 1979-80, but between 1980 and 1982, when Michigan experienced a sharp downturn in its economy, "state aid allocations to community colleges plummeted. The state's appropriation per full-time student dropped from $1,149 to $1,025 and from 47% to only 36% of total community college revenue" (Headley, 1990, p. 8). The legislature gradually reversed this, but in 1990 state support was 38% of total community college operating revenues (Michigan State Board of Education). The specific figures and comparison of revenue sources for Michigan for 1970, 1980, and 1990 are listed and graphically compared in the findings of this study. With headcount attendance at over 200,000 (in a single semester) in 1990 and EYES (fiscal-ycar equated students) at 117,652, revenue sources in Michigan seem to be exhausted. According to Headley's findings in her 1990 study of Michigan's community colleges for Public Sector Consultants, Inc., located in Lansing, Michigan, tuition rates averaged 189% of the national average, and local tax support exceeded the national average by 106% (p. 9). Public Sector Consultants recommended redistricting as an option because in 1990 the community college districts contained less than 50% of the state's land area and only 61 77% of the total state equalized value (SEV) of real and personal property. Redrawing existing borders to include all areas of the state would (1) increase the amount of funds available to two-year institutions by as much as an extimated $40.5 million, (2) make post-secondary education more accessible by removing higher out-of-district tuition, and (3) strengthen the system by promoting cooperation instead of competition. in statewide taxation. These recommendations would result Increased emphasis on endowments and investments was recommended. The fiscal recommendations were combined with program recommendation, such as televideo classes and cooperative programs with business and industry to more efficiently use resources. Including the entire state in community college districts would provide community college services to the entire state. The access issue and state funding remain an important issue in Michigan. According to Breneman and Nelson (1981), accessibility and low tuition are the most substantiating factor for community colleges. Undoubtedly, community colleges attract some students away from senior colleges, and some of these students would have been better off if they had not been diverted to a community college [instead of a senior university]. On the other hand, for many the community college is the only effective option for postsecondary education— it is that or nothing at all. This is particularly true for older part-time students. Community colleges' contribution to equity in higher education then requires balancing the gains for many in providing access to any college. . . . Low tuition has traditionally been the cornerstone of financing policies designed to attract lowincome students to community colleges. . . . With 62 rising costs and tightening state budgets, pricing policy remains a controversial subject in all states and poses what arguably is the most important equity issue in community college finance. (pp. 102 - 103) As community colleges have become less aligned with a single school district and traditional funding sources resist expansion, Michigan is challenged with the access and low-tuition objectives. Attempts to redistrict have been clouded by an assortment of ways of expressing access— in­ district, service area, and community college services of some four-year universities. Research to identify accessibility based on residence within a uniform distance had not been done. Another concern in Michigan is the complexity of State community college funding. The formula being used is not fully funded, and this alters the amounts being received by each community college from the intended appropriation. Michigan's formula is summarized by Wattenbarger and Mercer (1988) . Michigan does not collect or analyze 'program' costs in terms of degree or certificate programs. Costs are collected through the Activities Classification Structure which looks at activities versus programs. The activities are clustered in 34 instructional activities by common disciplines of instructional intent. A formula is used to determine state aid for community colleges. The formula for general fund instructional activities is based on contact hours. The base year for funding 1986-87 [as an example] is based on 1984 enrollment. Student services funds are based on a rate per student headcount rather than contact hour or credit hour or FTE enrollments. Administrative costs are funded on fiscal year equated student enrollment according to a percentage based on size of college enrollment. 63 The state appropriations also have an equalization factor for district tax variability. In 1985, the state enacted special grant funds for energy conservation and educaiton purposes. There is a minimum amount allotted for each institution. (pp. 55 - 56) This review of literature, related to accessibility and funding of community colleges, shows the national and state trends and concern for optimal geographic access with low tuition. The comprehensive roles which have developed for community colleges means that a community without a community college is affected by the lack of accessible programs and community identity. Business and industry gain from access to the training programs along with the general population. Economic development has been integrated into the community colleges' roles. The summary statements in Appendix A show the community involvement and social roles of the public community colleges. Much more is at stake than the first two-years of college— child-care programs are emphasized, remedial adult education programs are available, and counseling services are aimed at personal and professional development. The findings of this study show which residents of Michigan have access to community colleges using two measures of distance, 25 miles and 50 miles, and which residents do not have access using these same distances. The methods used and the information generated may be of value for Michigan community college funding decisions and as a guideline for similar studies in other states. CHAPTER 3 Research Design and Procedures Introduction The research design and procedures employed in collecting and analyzing the data to answer the research questions are described in this chapter. The explanations are arranged in the order of the research questions. Michigan Community Colleges Operating Revenues Research question one: What dollar amounts of general funds were received by each community college in Michigan in 1970, 1980 and 1990? following: Subtopics of this question include the What percentage of funding for each college came from the State? What percentages of funding for each school came from sources other than the State (local taxes, tuition, and "other")? What percentage of students for each school paid "in-district" tuition? Each year the Community College Services Unit of the State of Michigan State Board of Education publishes a data book, Activities Classification Structure Data Book (ACS). This publication commenced with the academic year 1981-82. The development of a data base was mandated by Act 419, P.A. 1978, and was to be compatible with the Michigan Manual for Uniform Financial Reporting Education, 1985). (Michigan State Board of The ACS Data Books from 1981-82 through 64 65 1989-90 reported Community College revenues from all sources, as well as expenditures. Each report provided the data on which the next year's appropriations were based. From these books the amounts of revenue and the sources of the revenue were drawn. For the years 1969-70 through 1980-81 State of Michigan Fiscal Budgets and reports were used to compare the amounts of revenue and the sources of revenue for each of the 29 community colleges. The ACS Data Books were obtained from the Community College Services Unit of the State Department of Education in Lansing, and the State of Michigan Budgets were obtained from the State of Michigan Library in Lansing. The revenue data for the years 1970, 1980, and 1990 are included in the findings of this study. These data are presented in four tables listing the following for each of the 29 community colleges: Name of the community college and total revenue for 1970, 1980, and 1990 Dollar amounts and percentage of total revenue from the state for 1970, 1980, and 1990 Dollar amounts, number of mills, and percentage of total revenue from local millage for 1970, 1980, and 1990 Dollar amounts, per-credit tuition, and percentage of total revenue from tuition for 1970, 1980, and 1990 Dollar amounts, and percentage of total revenue from other sources for 1970, 1980, and 1990. 66 Dollar amounts were rounded to the nearest thousand for easier analysis. The amounts for each college and the differences among the colleges for each revenue source were analyzed and displayed in charts for years 1970, 1980, and 1990. Bar charts compare revenue sources for the 29 community colleges, and pie charts compare the revenue sources for the state as a whole. Michigan Population Distribution and Community College Access Research guestion two: What was the population distribution by counties and localities in 1990? These population statistics were required to answer the following: To which community college/s in 1990 did the residents of each county and the localities have access within 25 miles? To which community college/s did the residents of each county and the localities have access within 50 miles? United States census statistics were obtained from the State of Michigan Library to complete the tables listing each of the 83 counties followed by the localities (cities and townships). The populations for 1990 are listed following the names of the counties and localities. The tables listing the names of the counties, localities, and 1990 population continue with the names of the accessible community college/s for each locality, the distance from the locality to the college/s and the amount of state funding appropriated for the accessible community 67 college/s. Three ranges were used for distance: 0 through 25 miles (Range A ) , 26 through 50 miles (Range B ) , and beyond 50 miles (Range C ) . Accessibility was determined by identifying each locality and each community college in Michigan as Cartesian (x,y) coordinates. The Pythagorean theorem was then used to calculate the distance between the locality and a community college: d = \/ The distance in x,y (Y2-Yi)z + (x2-x,)^ units was then multiplied by a units-to-miles conversion ratio, which for this application was 1:10. Using the 1:10 conversion factor made it easy to convert from units to miles by just moving the decimal point. A transparent grid was placed over a map of the state of Michigan to first identify a county as x,y coordinates. A copy of the map and grid segment follow on Page 68, Figure 4. The southwest corner of reference. of each county was used as a point (As an example, the x,y coordinates for Washtenaw County are x295,y28.) From this state map another grid was applied to each county. A transparency of this grid and Washtenaw County as an example follow on Page 69, Figure 5. Use of localities was necessary because of the large size of the counties. Some residents of a county might reside within 20 miles of a community college, while others might reside more than 60 miles from a community college. 68 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 1 3 14 15 1 6 17 18 19 2 0 21 22 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 2 7 2 8 2 9 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 3 7 38 3 9 40 Figure 4 Michigan State Map and Grid Segment 69 O A K LA N D ; CO L IV IN G S T O N za n o a t h f ie l d Washtenaw Co. SALEM DEXTER WEBSTER • CHELSEA' [V W IT T O T LA K E - 4 - ------ANN A50OR ys 'PSILANT M L™...Ai4N,AftSQC- SHARON LOOl FREEDOM WILLOW RUN i YP3ILANTI MANCHESTER SALINE HD, s a l in e CD LENAW EE CO LINCOLN AUGUSTA M O N RO E Figure 5 County Map and Grid Segment 70 Population statistics are available for localities (cities townships), and locality names are easily recognized. Within Washtenaw County are 24 localities. This is higher than the average of 19 (1,627 localities in 83 counties). A copy of a county data input form is shown on Page 71, Figure 6. Worksheets were used for data entry— x,y locality coordinates; 1990 locality population; name of locality, and name of county in which locality is located. Counties were coded as the first two digits of a locality name, and the data were sorted during the processing on these two digits to group localities in the correct counties. The point of a locality closest to the in-district community college or the nearest community college for a locality not in a community college district was used as the x,y coordinates. Three community colleges have more than one campus: Macomb has three campuses all less than 5 miles apart, Oakland has five campuses 3 - 1 2 five campuses 5 - 1 2 miles apart. miles apart, and Wayne has For these three colleges the main campus was designated as the x,y coordinates. The short distances among the campuses is believed to be insignificant in determining accessibility; and if it were a factor, the main campus with the administrative offices is believed to be the most important location for access. The scale on the state map grid is 10 linear miles for each x and y coordinate and 1/6" equals 10 miles. The scale 71 Data Input Washtenaw County Population: 282,937 Southwest Corner: X29.5, Y 2 .8 Population 109,592 3,793 4,415 1,304 4,407 1,486 2,585 3,902 2,228 3,492 4,040 6,732 17,668 3,734 6,660 1,276 11,077 1,366 8,720 5,827 3,235 6,225 24,846 45,307 Locality X Y Ann Arbor city Ann Arbor township Augusta township Bridgewater township Dexter township Freedom township Lima township Lodi township Lyndon township Manchester township Milan city Northfield township Pittsfield township Salem township Saline city Saline township Scio township Sharon township Superior township Sylvan township Webster township York township Ypsilanti city Ypsilanti township 31.9 31.9 31.9 30.7 30.7 30.7 30.7 31.3 30.1 30.1 31.8 31.9 31.9 31.9 31.4 31.3 31.3 30.1 31.9 30.1 31.3 31.9 32.6 31.9 4.2 4.2 3.4 3.4 4.6 4.0 4.2 4.1 4.6 3.4 2.9 4.6 4.0 4.6 3.6 3.6 4.2 4.0 4.2 4.4 4.6 3.4 4.0 4.0 Figure 6 Sample Data Input Form 72 on the county map grid remains 10 linear miles for each x and y coordinate, but 2 1/2" equals 10 miles, making the location of townships and cities more accurate. Since the closest point of a township or city to a community college was used as the x,y coordinates, and the coordinates are 10 miles apart, it should be noted that a person within a locality could live from 0 to 10 miles from the coordinate point. Geographic townships are six miles square, but political townships vary. vary in size. Cities and villages The fact that a person may live on the farther side of a city or township is believed to be an insignificant factor in determining accessibility. It also should be noted that distance was measured linearly; therefore, road mileage would vary. Again, because the coordinates are only 10 miles apart, it is believed that the road mileage differences over such a short interval would be insignificant for the purpose of this study. Forty x and forty y coordinates at 10-mile intervals were charted to plot Michigan, which is 390 miles long and 373 miles wide. Each community college was identified as an x,y coordinate. x3i.9Y4.2 * As an example, Washtenaw Community College is The x,y coordinates and the state appropriations for each community college for 1990 were input to the computer program. 73 The computer program used three measurements of distance: Range A, 0 through 25 miles; Range B, 26 through 50 miles; and Range C, beyond 50 miles. The computer program was written to permit five ranges in the event the program is used for measuring other distances or in the event shorter ranges are desired for future research. The program will also permit varying values based on a decrease or an increase of distance within a range. The computer program, "Distance.EXE," was written in dBase. The program was written to accept the inputs of x,y coordinates, funding and population, to sort the input data-combinations of 29 community colleges and 1,627 localities, and print out the distances between a locality and community college falling within Ranges A, B, and C. The output was then transferred to WordPerfect for report printing. The documentation for the computer program is included in Appendix C. Jeff Chaney, who wrote the program was employed in the Computer Information Services Department of Lake Superior State University until October, 1991, when he moved to Southeastern Michigan to work in computer programming for a private employer. The output of the computer program lists in nine columns the localities by county, the distance from the community college/s, the name of community college/s within Range A and the name of community college/s within Range B, the amount of state funding for the community college/s, the per-capita value for Range A colleges and Range B colleges 74 for each locality, and the total per-capita value of state funding for the county. The per-capita values for the individual localities have little meaning because of the small numbers in some of the townships and cities, but collectively the data by localities provide more accurate county data. The consideration of localities rather than a county as a whole takes into account that access to community colleges varies within a county. The data were first sorted by counties and then by localities within each county. The county summary information is presented in a table in Chapter Four by counties. A county per-capita amount was calculated as a weighted average (percentage of people in a county residing within 50 miles of a community college (Ranges A and B ) . The data were sorted again and printed by community college. This report was formulated into a summary table for inclusion in Chapter Four. This permitted Lhe calculation of a per-capita amount for each community college of state funding based on the number of people living within 50 miles of the college (Ranges A and B ) . The summary chart by community college is in Chapter Four. The number of residents within 50 miles was also compared with enrollment to determine enrollment at each of the community colleges as a percentage of population served (within 50 miles). 75 Counties Per-capita State Funding for Accessible Community Colleges Research question three: What was the Michigan per- capita dollar amount of State funds for all 29 community colleges in Michigan in 1990? This amount was calculated from the state total funding for community colleges and the total state population. These numbers were available from answering questions one and two. The State dollar amount per-capita of funding was needed to answer research questions four and five. Research question four: What were the county per- capita amounts of State funds for each of the 83 counties in Michigan for 1990? What was the deviation from the State mean for each county? The per-capita amounts of state funding for each of the counties were calculated by dividing the sum of the amounts of state funding provided to the community colleges within oO miles or a (j u uiiuy s popuictLion by the total county population. These values for each county were compared with the statewide mean. The deviation from the mean for each county was then calculated. An analysis of findings and tables in Chapter Four report the results. Community Colleges Per-capita Funding for Populations with Access Research question five: What was the per-capita funding of each of the 29 community colleges for populations within 25 miles and 50 miles of each college? 76 The per-capita values of state funding for each of the community colleges were taken from the computer printout showing the population within 25 miles and the population within 50 miles. The deviation from the statewide mean was calculated to compare the 29 schools. A comparative table and summary chart in Chapter Four show the results. State Funding and Population shifts during the Last 20 Years Affecting Access Research question six: Have any significant shifts occurred from 1970 to 1990 in state population distribution or state funding distribution which may have affected accessibility? Counties with a 10 percent or greater change in population and colleges with a 10 percent or greater change in funding amount (after adjustment for percentage change for all schools' funding and state population) from 1970 to 1990 were listed. These changes were analyzed and are reported in Chapter Four. It was not within the scope of this research to analyze these changes in detail. Several other factors besides the population being served might affect the amounts of state funding; however, significant population shifts may have affected accessibility. Chapter Five presents the conclusions from the findings. The conclusions summarize the comparative value of accessible community college services based on the location of a person's residence. It is believed that this information along with the background information of this 77 study may be of use to state decision makers in funding recommendations for community college services. CHAPTER 4 Research Findings Introduction The problem of this study was to compare population distribution in Michigan with the distribution of State funding of community colleges. The purposes of the study were to determine accessibility of community colleges in Michigan using distance as a measure of access and to determine state funding as related to accessibility. The research findings are presented in accordance with the research questions. The six research questions were classified and captioned as follows: Michigan Community Colleges Operating Revenues (Research Question I) Michigan Population Distribution and Community College Access (Research Question II) Counties Per-capita State Funding for Accessible Community Colleges (Research Questions III and IV) Community Colleges Per-capita State Funding for Populations with Access (Research Question V) State Funding and Population Shifts during the Last 20 Years Affecting Access (Research Question VI) The research questions are answered through the use of tables and charts with required explanations and 78 79 pertinent discussion. The conclusions drawn from this information and recommendations follow in Chapter Five. Michigan Community Colleges Operating Revenues Research Question I: What dollar amounts of operating funds were received by each community college in Michigan in 1970, 1980, and 1990? Tables 1, 2, 3, and 4 on Pages 84 through 87 list the operating funds (general fund) received by each community college in 1970, 1980, and 1990. The 1990 amounts were taken from the 1989-90 Activities Classification Structure Data Book (Michigan State Board of Education, 1990). The 1980 amounts were taken from raw data on a printout for 1979-80 obtained from the Community Colleges Unit of the Michigan Department of Education (Jenkins, 1991). The 1970 amounts were calculated from the 1970-71 Detail of Current Operations of the Executive Budget for the Fiscal Year ending June 30, 1971, J65). (State of Michigan, 1971, pp. J61 - The budget detail showed the budgeted amounts for 1970-71 and the change from 1969-70. The use of these figures for actual expenditures was verified with the Department of Management and Budget (Pawlovich, 1991). The percentages shown in all four tables were computer calculated and rounded to the nearest whole percent. Summary calculations from Tables the following: 1, 2, 3, and 4 show In 1990 community colleges in Michigan received 95 percent of their operating revenues from three 80 major sources— the State, local taxes, and tuition. The revenue category, "other," including donations and foundation contributions and some federal funds for vocational education, provided 5 percent of their operating revenues in 1990. The three major sources accounted for 97 percent of operating revenues in 1980 and 94 percent in 1970. Research Question I. A: What percentage of funding (general fund) for each school came from the State? Table 1 on Page 84 lists the amounts of State funding provided to each community college for operations. The amounts and percentages of total operating revenue received from the State by each of the 29 community colleges in 1970, 1980, and 1990 are listed. The wide ranges of variation among the colleges in 1970, 1980, and 1990 are evident. State funding increased to 42% in 1970, 47% in 1980, and then decreased to 38% in 1990. The percentage of change from 1980 to 1990 (9%) was compensated by an increase of 4% from tuition, 2% from local tax operating revenues, and 2% from "other" sources. Research Question I. B: What percentages of funding for each school came from sources other than the State (local tax, tuition, and "other")? Table 2, Page 85, lists the amounts and percentages of funding received from local taxes; Table 3, Page 86, lists the amounts and percentages of funding from tuition; and Table 4, Page 87, lists the amounts and percentages from "other" sources. 81 The percentages of revenue from each of the sources for the State as a whole have varied only from three to nine percent during the past 20 years, but among the schools the range is great. Pie charts, Figure 7 on Page 88, compare the revenue sources for the State as a whole for 1970, 1980, and 1990. Bar charts, Figures 8, 9, and 10, on Pages 89 through 91 show the variance among the schools in revenue sources for 1970, 1980, and 1990 (data from Tables 1, 2, and 3). Table 2 shows operating millage only. Some colleges are supported by separate millage factors for buildings and site or for debt retirement. In 1990 eight colleges had .5 mill or less for buildings and site, and 20 colleges had from .06 to .75 mill for debt retirement (Michigan State Board of Education, 1990, p. 48). The analyses at the bottom of Tables 1, 2, and 3, show the wide ranges among the colleges in sources of revenue. The final measure, the Coefficient of variation, compares for 1970, 1980, and 1990, the degree of variability among the colleges. The Coefficient of Variation expresses the standard deviation as a percentage of the mean to compare the variation of two sets of data with different means (VanMatre and Gilbreath, 1983). Local tax support had the greatest variation among the 29 community colleges: from Table 2, Page 85, a range of 44 in 1990 (4% to 48%), a range of 42 in 1980 (3% to 45%), and a range of 30 in 1970 (7% to 39%). 82 An increase in variability is evident among the schools in State funding comparing 1970, 1980, and 1990, but it is second to local tax support. From Table 1, Page 84, State funding had a range of 43 in 1990 (21% to 64%), a range of 35 in 1980 (34% to 69%), and a range of 34 in 1970 (25% to 59%). The least amount of variation among the colleges' three main operating revenue sources is tuition; still, from 1980 to 1990 the variation increased. The ranges of support from tuition can be seen in Table 3, Page 86: a range of 23 in 1990 (15% to 38%), a range of 18 in 1980 (17% to 35%), and a range of 25 in 1970 (21% to 46%). Research Question I. C: What percentage of students for each school paid "in-district" tuition? The in­ district and out-of-district tuition figures and percentages of enrollment for 1970 and 1990 follow on Page 92, Table 5. This information supplements Table 3, and partially substantiates the greater variation in tuition revenue among the colleges in 1990 than in 1970. 11 on Page 93 charts the variation. Figure In-district enrollment in 1990 ranged from 16% to 96%, with a State mean of 70%. Table 6, Page 94, compares FYES (fiscal year eguated students) and total headcount in 1990. These figures are analyzed later in Table 15 which compares FYES and total headcount to the percentage of population being served (Research Question III), but alone the numbers in Table 6 83 show the number of students comprising an "FYES." The high number of part-time students is significant when considering the issue of accessibility. headcount per FYES is wide, 1.94 to 5.44. The range of The range is less significant than the fact that in 1990 it took from 1.94 students to 5.44 students to comprise a full-time student (31 semester credits). For the purposes of this study, headcount is important; it represents number of students, a figure which can be directly compared to the population. Both FYES and total headcount were used in the comparison of enrollment as a percentage of population served which follows and relates to Research Question III as well as Question I. C. The 1990 amounts in Tables 5 and 6 and Figure 11 were taken from the 1989-90 Activities Classification Structure Data Book (Michigan State Board of Education, 1990); 1970 amounts were calculated from the 1970-71 Detail of Current Operations of the Executive Budget. Fiscal Year ending June 30, 1971,(State of Michigan, 1971, pp. J61-J65). [Text continued on Page 95.] 84 Table 1 Michigan Community Colleges Revenue from State Funding NameofCollege TotalRevenue (thousands) 1970 1990 1980 - ' $6,494 S3.391 $1,197 791 2,486 5,935 5 . 406 1 6 , 2 8 1 28,422 963 4,500 2,069 605 2,655 4,546 4.007 30,266 13,321 34,694 19,129 6,780 7,975 5,638 3,380 17,884 9,860 3,056 16,485 7.709 1.682 13,941 2.317 6,929 4,567 504 2.602 10.419 1.631 4,652 51,580 23,019 4.715 58,503 28,859 11.0B2 5,475 2,720 562 4,008 10,742 1.796 6,098 2,162 823 28,407 15.6B4 6,466 13,588 7,651 3,050 4,419 2,422 640 14,217 5,577 1,330 58,444 26,879 12.762 12,278 6,707 2.736 26,166 12,535 4,662 6,874 3,498 1.007 3.947 27,189 12,083 2.745 36,020 27,464 444 2,396 4,895 Alpena BayOeNoc Deha GlenOaks Gogebic GrandRapids HenryFord HighlandPark Jackson Kalamazoo Kellogg Kirtland LakeMichigan Lansing Macomb MidMichigan Monroe Montcalm Mon Muskegon NorthCentral Northwestern Oakland St.Clair Schoolcraft Southwestern Washtenaw Wayne WestShore -- S551.023 5200.386 $91,086 Totals 1990 i 1 | | | j | | | | | | | j | | | | | | j j | j | | | | j | j i 1 StateFunding (thousands) 1980 % % $3,090 48% 2,561 43% 9,125 32% 1,313 29% 2,904 64% 12,609 42% 14,386 41% 5,029 63% 8,784 49% 6,032 37% 5,570 40% 2,114 46% 3,023 29% 19,945 39% 22,108 38% 2,415 44% 2,226 21% 2,042 33% 10,067 35% 5,878 43% 1,854 42% 5,254 37% 15,048 26% 4,602 37% 7,471 29% 3,634 53% 6,773 25% 22,224 62% 1,399 29% $1,930 1,465 5,539 843 1,843 7,151 9,830 3,426 5,754 3,575 3,345 1,450 1,813 11,728 14,304 1,515 1,423 1,341 6,531 4,062 1,155 3,048 9,011 3,039 5,116 2,002 4,079 15,333 946 1970 57% 59% 34% 41% 69% 54% 51% 61% 58% 46% 48% 56% 39% 51% 50% 56% 36% 62% 42% 53% 48% 55% 34% 45% 41% 57% 34% 56% 39% $209,480 38% $132,597 47% $511 420 1,817 495 356 1,937 3,083 1,533 1,584 421 1,132 198 657 2,024 4,145 288 738 317 2,392 997 308 582 5,302 1,468 1,949 499 1,448 1,477 139 % 43% 53% 34% 51% 59% 48% 45% 45% 52% 25% 49% 39% 40% 43% 37% 51% 41% 39% 37% 33% 48% 44% 42% 54% 42% 50% 37% 54% 31% $38,217 42% ANALYSIS RANGE 1990 1980 1970 43 (21-64%) 35 (34-69%) 34 (25-59%) MEAN y 38 47 42 3,738 2,690 1,732 SUM OF SQUARED DEVIATIONS z a - y) 2 VARIANCE 02 STANDARD DEVIATION o COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION V 128.90 92.75 59.72 11.35 9.63 7.73 29.86 27.51 22.74 85 Table 2 Michigan Community Colleges Revenue from Local Tax with Operating Millage Namo ol College Alpena Bay de Noc DeRa Glen Oaks Gogebic Grand Rapids Henry Ford Highland Park Jackson Kalamazoo Kellogg Kiriland Lake Michigan Lansing Macomb Mid Michigan Monroe Mom calm Mon Muskegon North Central Northwestern Oakland Sl Clair Schoolcraft Southwestern Washtenaw Wayne West Shore Totals Total Revenue (thousands) Local Tax Revenue 1990 1980 1970 1990 SG.494 5,935 28.422 4,500 4,546 30.266 34.694 7,975 17,884 16,465 13,941 4,567 10,419 51,580 58,503 5,475 10,742 6.098 28,407 13,588 4.419 14,217 58,444 £3.391 2,486 16.281 2,069 2.655 13,321 19,129 5.G38 9.860 7,709 6.929 2.602 4.652 23,019 28,859 2.720 4,008 2.162 15,684 7,651 2.422 5,577 26,879 6,707 12,535 3,498 12.0B3 27,464 2.396 £1,197 791 . 5,406 963 605 4,007 G.7B0 3,380 3,056 1,682 2,317 504 1,631 4,715 11,082 562 1,796 823 6.466 3.050 640 1.330 12,762 2.736 4.662 1,007 3,947 2,745 444 $1,042 854 B.734 2,100 559 5,271 5,447 289 1.993 5,062 4,310 1,020 4,592 13,124 14,099 929 6,543 1,230 7,719 3,740 996 2,245 20,065 3,371 10,287 973 13.194 3,669 2.266 12.278 26.166 6,874 27,189 36.020 4,895 £551,023 $280,386 £91,086 % 16% 14% 31% 46% 12% 17% 16% 4% 11% 31% 31% 22% 44% 25% 24% 17% 61% 20% 27% 27% 22% 16% 34% 27% 39% 14% 48% 10% 46% Mills * 19B0 so 2.500 1.815 1.600 3.000 1.500 2.917 2.219 1.600 1.303 2.500 2.950 1.000 1.721 2.839 1.330 1.500 2.250 1.750 1.400 2.400 1.750 2.000 1.000 1.500 2.270 1.500 2.950 0.250 2.250 501 6.283 675 179 2,147 3,312 148 1,321 1,952 1,977 610 1,605 4.631 5.691 486 1,754 355 4,766 1,932 541 546 9,500 1,856 4,118 403 5,428 2,807 921 S66.445 $145,723 26% % Mills 0% 20% 39% 33% 7% 16% 17% 3% 13% 25% 29% 23% 35% 20% 20% 18% 44% 16% 30% 25% 22% 10% 35% 26% 33% 12% 45% 10% 38% 1.500 1.900 1.600 1.500 1.473 2.200 Z150 1.000 1.330 1.200 1.775 0.979 1.000 2000 1.000 1.231 1.241 0.S35 NA 2.020 0.989 0.968 0.979 1.495 1.770 1.000 2.250 0.250 1.453 24% Operating Mills Only 1970 * * 1990 RANGE 44 (4-48:) 1980 42*{3-45:) 1970 30*(7-39Z) MEAN u 26 24 23 5,128 3,415 1,973 SUM OF SQUARED DEVIATIONS r(x - p) 2 VARIANCE 0s STANDARD DEVIATION a COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION V 176.83 121.96 70.46 13.30 11.04 8.39 51.15 39.44 29.97 •ALPENA EXCLUDED •WAYNE EXCLUDED _ 20% $246 90 1,535 143 46 862 1,779 322 612 597 262 166 483 1,132 2,484 134 535 161 1,344 1,125 66 101 3,956 398 1,192 131 1,224 0 124 11% 28% 15% 7% 21% 26% 9% 20% 35% 11% 32% 29% 24% 22% 23% 30% 19% 21% 37% 10% 7% 31% 14% 25% 13% 31% 0% 27% $21,250 23% ** Alpena local funding in 1980 was shown in "other" and as'a part of State funding because of a change . from K-14 to a community college district during the year. The sumof the percentages from state, tuition, and."other" is 100. a n a ly s is % Mills * 1.800 1.100 0.900 0.700 1.500 1.310 2.120 1.840 1.330 0.750 1.400 1.000 0.840 1.000 1.000 1.050 1.250 1.000 1.600 2.500 0.750 0.800 1.000 0.800 1.120 1.000 1.250 0.000 0.680 86 Table 3 Michigan Community Colleges Revenue from Tuition Name olCollege Alpena BaydeNoc Delta GlenOaks Gogebic GrandRapids HenryFord HighlandPark Jackson Kalamazoo Kellogg Kirtland LakeMichigan Lansing Macomb MidMichigan Monroe Montcalm Mott Muskegon NorthCentral Northwestern Oakland St.Clair Schoolcraft Southwestern Washtenaw Wayne WestShore TotalRevenue (thousands) 1990 1980 1970 1990 $6,494 5,935 28,422 4,500 4,546 30,266 34,694 7,975 17,884 16,485 13,941 4,567 10,419 51,580 58,503 5,475 10,742 6,098 28,407 13,588 4,419 14,217 58,444 12,278 26,166 6,874 27,189 36.020 4,895 $2,123 2,244 10,021 893 749 11,027 12,983 2,497 5,260 4,299 3,177 1,107 2,008 16,374 19,990 1,931 1,591 1,365 8,644 3,173 1,147 5,662 20,667 4,008 7,701 1,997 5,705 7,758 766 53,391 2,486 16,281 2,069 2,655 13,321 19,129 5,638 9,860 7,709 6,929 2,602 4,652 23,019 28,859 2,720 4,008 2,162 15.6B4 7,651 2,422 5,577 26,879 6,707 12,535 3,498 12,083 27,464 2,396 51,197 791 5.406 963 605 4,007 6,780 3,380 3,056 1,682 2.317 504 1,631 4,715 11,082 562 1,796 823 6,466 3,050 640 1,330 12,762 2,736 4.662 1,007 3,947 2,745 444 5551,023 5280,386 591,086 Totals DistrictTuition (thousands) % 1980 % 33% 38% 35% 20% 16% 36% 37% 31% 29% 26% 23% 24% 19% 32% 34% 35% 15% 22% 30% 23% 26% 40% 36% 33% 29% 29% 21% 22% 16% $914 520 4,137 438 561 3,558 5,383 1,595 2,545 1,836 1,607 455 949 6.186 7,833 666 719 393 4,167 1,357 501 1,936 7,503 1,639 3,036 929 2,119 8,296 421 $167,067 30% 27% 21% 25% 21% 21% 27% 28% 28% 26% 24% 23% 17% 20% 27% 27% 24% 18% 18% 27% 18% 21% 35% 28% 24% 24% 27% 18% 30% 18% 1970 $322 167 1,456 321 166 1,176 1,591 1,042 719 636 750 112 436 1,375 4,080 140 445 234 1,730 801 195 549 3,113 718 1,318 342 967 1,268 112 % 27% 21% 27% 33% 27% 29% 23% 31% 23% 38% 32% 22% 27% 29% 37% 24% 25% 28% 27% 26% 30% 41% 24% 26% 28% 34% 24% 46% 25% 572,199 26% $26,281 29% ANALYSIS 1990 1980 23 (15-38) MEAN p 30 26 29 1,827 678 676 SUM OF SQUARED DEVIATIONS 18 (17-35) 1970 25*(21-41) RANGE E(X - U ) 2 VARIANCE a2 63 STANDARD DEVIATION o COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION V 23.38 24.14 7.93 4.84 4.91 27.36 16.67 17.55 *WAYNE EXCLUDED (SEE TABLE 2) 87 Table 4 Michigan Community Colleges Revenue from Other Sources Name olCollege Alpena BaydeNoc Delia GlenOaks Gogebic GrandRapids HenryFord HighlandPark Jackson Kalamazoo Kellogg Kirtland LakeMichigan Lansing Macomb MidMichigan Monroe Montcalm Mon Muskegon NorthCentral Northwestern Oakland St.Clair Schoolcraft Southwestern Washtenaw Wayne WestShore Totals TotalRevenue (thousands) 1970 1990 1980 56.494 5,935 2B.422 4.500 4,546 30.266 34.694 7,975 17,804 16.405 13.941 4,567 10,419 51,500 50,503 5,475 10,742 6,096 28.407 13,500 4,419 14,217 58.444 12.278 26,166 6,874 27,189 36.020 4,895 53,391 2,486 16,281 2.069 2,655 13,321 19.129 5.638 9,860 7,709 6,929 2,602 4.652 23,019 28,859 2.720 4,008 2.162 15.684 7,651 2,422 5,577 26,879 6,707 12,535 3,498 12,083 27.464 2,396 51,197 791 5.406 963 605 4,007 6,780 3,380 3,056 1,682 2.317 504 1.631 4,715 11.082 562 1,796 823 6.466 3.050 640 1,330 12,762 2,736 4,652 1,007 3.947 2,745 444 5551,023 S280.3B6 591,086 1990 $239 276 542 194 334 1,359 1,878 160 1,847 1,092 884 326 796 2,137 2,306 200 382 1,461 1,977 797 422 1,056 2,464 297 707 270 1,517 2,369 464 OtherRevenue (thousands) 1980 % % 4% 5% 2% 4% 7% 4% 5% 2% 10% 7% 6% 7% 8% 4% 4% 4% 4% 24% 7% 6% 9% 7% 4% 2% 3% 4% 6% 7% 9% $28,753 5% $547 0 322 113 72 465 604 469 240 346 0 87 285 474 1,031 53 112 73 220 300 225 47 865 173 265 164 457 1,028 108 16% 0% 2% 5% 3% 3% 3% 8% 2% 4% 0% 3% 6% 2% 4% 2% 2% 3% 1% 4% 9% 1% 3% 2% 2% 5% 3% 5% 4% $9,145 3% 1970 $118 114 598 4 37 32 327 483 141 28 173 28 55 184 373 0 70 111 1,000 127 71 98 391 152 203 35 308 0 69 % 10% 14% 11% 0% 6% 1% 5% 14% 5% 2% 7% 5% 3% 4% 3% 0% 4% 13% 15% 4% 11% 7% 3% 6% 4% 3% 8% 0% 15% $5,338 6% 88 Revenue Sources 1990 DistrictTuition 30% $167,066 State Funding 38% $209,477 Local Tax Revenue 26% $145,723 Other Revenue 5% $28,752 1980 DistrictTuition 27% $75,729 State Funding 47% $132,597 Local Tax Revenue 23% $66,445 Other Revenue 3% $9,145 1970 DistrictTuition 29% $26,281 State Funding 42% $38,217 Local Tax Revenue 23% $21,250 Other Revenue 6% $5,338 Figure 7 Community Colleges Revenue Sources, 1990, 1980, 1970 Percentage of Revenue from State Funding Mi chi gan Co mmu ni t y C ol l e ge s Alpena 888888888888888888888888888 Bay de Noc Delta Glen Oaks Gogebic Grand Rapids Henry Ford Highland Park Jackson Kalamazoo Kellogg Kirtlana Lake Michigan Lansing Macomb Mid Michigan Monroe Montcalm M o tt Muskegon North Central Northwestern Oakland St. Clair Schoolcraft Southwestern Washtenaw Wayne West Shore 0% 10% 2 0 % 3 0 % 4 0 % 5 0 % 6 0 % 7 0 % 8 0 % Figure 8 Michigan Community Colleges State Funding Revenues Comparisons 00 vO 1970 1980 1990 Percentage of Revenue from Local Tax Mi ch i ga n C o mm u n it y C o ll e g e s Alpena Bay de Noe Delta Glen Oaks _ Gogebic ~t~ Grand Rapids Henry Ford Highland Park Jackson Kalamazoo Kellogg Kirtlana Lake Michigan Lansing Macomb Mid Michigan Monroe Montcalm Mott Muskegon North Central Northwestern Oakland St. Clair Schoolcraft 2849 Southwestern Washtenaw Wayne West Shore 0 % 10% vo O 1970 1 1980 1990 20% 30% 40% Figure 9 50% 60% 70% Michigan Community Colleges Local Tax Revenues Comparisons Percentage of Revenue from Tuition M i c h ig an C o mm u n i t y C o l l e ge s Alpena Bay de Noc Delta Glen Oaks Gogebic Grand Rapids Henry Ford Highland Park Jackson Kalamazoo Kellogg Kirtlana Lake Michigan Lansing Macomb Mid Michigan Monroe Montcalm Mott Muskegon North Central Northwestern Oakland St. Clair Schoolcraft Southwestern Washtenaw Wayne West Shore 1970 1980 1990 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Figure 10 Michigan Community Colleges Tuition Revenues Comparison Table 5 Twenty-year Comparison of In-district and Out-of-district Enrollment and Tuition 1990 Name of College Alpena Bay de Noc Delta Glen Oaks Gogebic Grand Rapids Henry Ford Highland Park Jackson Kalamazoo Kellogg Kirtland Lake Michigan Lansing Macomb Mid Michigan Monroe Montcalm Mott Muskegon North Central Northwestern Oakland St. Clair Schoolcraft Southwestern Washtenaw Wayne West Shore 1970 % In District Total FYES In District Tuition Out of District Tuition % In District Total FYES In District Tuition Out of District Tuition 55.5% 58 .8% 91.3% 89.1% 52 .4% 32 .4% 18 .7% 16.4% 57 .8% 80 .0% 73.9% 71.2% 86.2% 66.0% 86.8% 53 .0% 88.3% 43.2% 89.5% 71.9% 40.9% 49. 6% 85.6% 78.4% 65.6% 40.6% 73.7% 96.2% 93.0% 1, 445 1, 603 7, 054 788 749 6, 987 7,571 1,314 2, 970 4,849 2,886 846 1,728 12,087 14,335 1,351 1,754 1,136 5, 9C2 2, 811 923 3,136 15,965 2, 567 5, 338 1, 717 5, 300 5,500 $33.00 35.00 40.00 30.00 22.00 37.00 34.00 40.00 37.00 25.00 26.50 30.00 30.00 33.00 36.00 32.00 23.00 30.00 38.00 32.00 33 .50 39.00 35.00 37.00 33.50 32.00 31.00 35.00 30.00 $45.00 48 .50 59.00 44.00 34.00 57.00 48.00 50.00 47.00 46.00 44.53 42.50 40.00 46.50 57.00 48.00 34.00 45.00 45.00 53.00 42.50 64.50 59.00 58.00 47.00 42.00 48.00 52.50 46.00 59.0% 78.8% 90 .3% 80.5% 76.4% 58 .3% 49.0% 13.9% 84.1% 78 .8% 78 .0% 98 .4% 94.3% 75.9% 75.0% 58 .7% 71. 6% 85 .2% 92.6% 82 .0% 46.1% 51.3% 82.4% 74.2% 68.0% 54.0% 77 .0% 95.0% 92.2% 896 631 4, 013 623 525 4,128 6,007 2, 699 2,221 1, 370 1, 818 138 1, 482 4, 040 10,100 400 1,162 572 4,366 2,565 570 1,129 8,580 2,264 3,745 701 2, 489 3,064 224 $10.00 10.00 10 .00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10 .00 16.00 10 .00 11.00 10 .00 10 .00 10 .50 10 .00 10 .00 10 .00 11.00 10 .00 10 .00 10 .00 16.20 10.00 12.00 10 .00 12 .00 12 .50 10.00 12 .00 $20 .00 15.00 20 .00 20.00 15.00 20 .00 20.00 20 .00 24.00 20.00 18.50 15.00 20.00 19.50 20.00 15.00 20.00 16.00 20.00 20.00 15.00 20.60 20.00 17.00 20.00 18.00 25. 00 15. 00 19.50 122 In-District Tuition Per Credit Hour Michigan Community Colleges Alpena Bay de Noc Delta Glen Oaks Gogebic Grand Rapids Henry Ford Highland Park Jackson Kalamazoo Kellogg Kirtlana Lake Michigan Lansing Macomb Mid Michigan Monroe Montcalm Mott Muskegon North Central Northwestern Oakland St. Clair Schoolcraft Southwestern Washtenaw Wayne West Shore 1970 1980 1990 0$ 10$ 20$ Figure 30$ 40$ 50$ 11 Comparison of In-District Tuition rates for 1970, 1980, and 1990 94 Table 6 1990 Comparison of FYES and Total Headcount Name of College Alpena Bay de Noc Delta Glen Oaks Gogebic Grand Rapids Henry Ford Highland Park Jackson Kalamazoo Kellogg Kirtland Lake Michigan Lansing Macomb Mid Michigan Monroe Montcalm Mott Muskegon North Central Northwestern Oakland St. Clair Schoolcraft Southwestern Washtenaw Wayne West Shore FYES 1,445 1, 603 7, 054 788 749 6, 987 7,571 1,314 2, 970 4, 849 2,886 846 1,728 12,087 14,335 1,351 1,754 1,136 5,902 2,811 923 3,136 15,965 2,567 5,338 1,717 5,300 5,500 722 Total Headcount 3,843 3, 664 17,399 2,280 1,450 26,574 23,729 6,278 12,905 16,854 13,201 2, 654 7,768 48,071 50,410 4,839 7,359 6,176 23, 960 10,995 2,733 12,742 51,424 11,388 25,497 5,215 21,309 17,788 1, 855 Headcount per FYES 2.66 2.29 2.47 2.89 1.94 3.80 3.13 4.78 4.35 3.48 4.57 3.14 4.50 3.98 3.52 3.58 4.20 5.44 4.06 3.91 2.96 4.06 3.22 4.44 4.78 3.04 4.02 3.23 2.57 95 Michigan Population Distribution and Community College Access Research Question II: What was the population distribution by county and localities in 1990? The locations (x,y coordinates) of each of the community colleges and each of the localities in Michigan were entered into the computer. Table 8 on Pages 97 through 104 lists county populations in the second column. Tables 9, 10, and 11 on Pages 105 through 136 list the populations of the individual localities in the third column. The populations of counties and localities were used to answer Research Questions II. A.: To which community college/s in 1990 did the residents of each county and the localities have access within 25 miles? Question II. B.: And, Research To which community college/s in 1990 did the residents of each county and the localities have access within 50 miles? Tables 9, 10, and 11 list each of the localities first without a community college within 50 miles (Table 9), next with a community college between 25 miles and 50 miles (Table 10), and last with a community college within 25 miles of residence (Table 11). Sixteen of the eighty-three counties in Michigan have some localities without a community college within 50 miles (Table 9, Range C ) . Forty-two of the eighty-three counties in Michigan have some localities with community colleges beyond 25 linear miles but within 50 miles only (Table 10, Range B ) . 96 The localities with less accessibility are those with lower populations, accounting for only 7.3 percent of the State's population. Range C is comprised of 124 localities; Range B, 298 localities. Together Ranges B and C (422) account for 26 percent of the 1,627 localities of Michigan beyond 25 linear miles of a community college. Table 7 below summarizes accessibility for the state. Tables 9, 10, and 11 on Pages 105 through 136 show the counties and localities in each Range. Table 7 Michigan Community College Accessibility Population Range A (within 25 miles) Range B (26 to 50 miles) 456,651 4.9 Range C (beyond 50 miles) 214.037 2.4 Total population 8,624,609 Percent 9,295,297 92.7 100% Each of the 83 Michigan counties, the county populations, and the percentages of populations in both Ranges A and B (within 50 miles) are listed in Table 8 on Pages 97 through 104. Distance was measured linearly; road mileage distances vary and should be considered in data interpretation. In three instances, airline/linear mileage made a significant [Text continued on Page 137.] 97 Tabls e State Coanunlty Collage Funding by County - Sunmary County Alcona Alger Allegan Population Per Capita Value of Accessible State Funding Contributing Schools 10,145 $310.58 8,972 268.64 Bay De Hoc 90,509 396.92 Glen Oaks Grand Rapids Kalamazoo Kellogg Lake Michigan Alpena Kirtland Lansing Montcalm Muskegon Southwestern State Funding » of Pop. $3,090,394 2,113,575 100\ 3 2,561,277 94 1,312,600 12,608,479 6,032,017 5,570,050 3,022,625 19,944,700 2,041,625 5,877,650 3,634,363 66 100 100 100 60 22 16 28 75 Alpena 30,605 100.96 Alpena 3,090,394 100 Antrim 18,185 438.09 Kirtland North Central Northwestern 2,113,575 1,854,000 5,253,B22 41 100 100 Arenac 14,931 342.64 Alpena Delta Kirtland Mid Michigan 3,090,394 9,124,620 2,113,575 2,415,100 16 37 49 8 Baraga 7,954 0.00 50,057 1,005.12 Glen Oaks Grand Rapids Jackson Kalamazoo Kellogg Lansing Mnntrnlw Southwestern 1,312,600 12,608,479 8,783,500 6,032,017 5,570,050 19,944,700 2,041,625 3,634,363 47 90 58 100 100 100 53 19 Barry Bay Benzie Berrien Branch 111,723 185.81 Delta Kirtland Mid Michigan Mott 9,124,620 2,113,575 2,415,100 10,066,950 100 11 100 89 12,200 488.52 Northwestern West Shore 5,253,822 1,398,825 100 50 161,378 85.43 Glen Oaks Kalamazoo Lake Michigan Southwestern 1,312,600 6,032,017 3,022,625 3,634,363 97 97 100 100 41,502 856.12 1,312,600 8,783,500 6,032,017 5,570,050 19,944,700 3,634,363 100 100 94 100 68 18 Glen Oaks Jackson Kalamazoo Kellogg Lansing Southwestern Tabls 8 continued State Cousnunity Collage Funding by County - Sumnary County Population Per Capita Value of Accessible State Funding Contributing Schools State Funding $1,312,600 8,783,500 6,032,017 5,570,050 19,944,700 3,634,363 % of Pop. 1004 100 100 100 100 7 135,982 $308.07 Glen Oaks Jackson Kalamazoo Kellogg Lansing Southwestern Cass 49,477 372.67 Glen Oake Kalamazoo Kellogg Lake Michigan Southwestern 1,312,600 6,032,017 5,570,050 3,022,625 3,634,363 100 100 80 100 100 Charlevoix 21,468 305.54 North Central Northwestern 1,854,000 5,253,822 100 90 Cheboygan 21,398 95.42 Alpena North Central 3,090,394 1,854,000 6 100 Chippewa 34,604 0.00 Clare 24,952 573.51 Delta Kirtland Mid Michigan Montcalm 9,124,620 2,113,575 2,415,100 2,041,625 94 100 100 58 Clinton 57,883 760.45 Delta Crand Rapids Jackson Kellogg Lansing Montcalm MOtt Washtenaw 9,124,620 12,608,479 8,783,500 5,570,050 19,944,700 2,041,625 10,066,950 6,772,975 17 4 85 42 100 89 96 11 Crawford 12,260 242.76 Alpena Kirtland Mid Michigan 3,090,394 2,113,575 2,415,100 3 100 31 Delta 37,780 67.79 Bay De Noc 2,561,277 100 Dickinson 26,831 95.46 Bay De Noc 2,561,277 100 Eaton 92,879 456.61 1,312,600 12,608,479 8,783,500 6,032,017 5,570,050 19,944,700 2,041,625 10,066,950 6,772,975 5 10 100 19 100 100 20 40 18 Emmet 25,040 74.04 1,854,000 100 Calhoun Glen Oaks Grand Rapids Jackson Kalamazoo Kellogg Lansing Montcalm Mott Washtenaw North Central 99 Table 8 continued State Conmunlty College Funding by County - Suaraary County Population Per Capita Value of Accessible State Funding Contributing Schools Delta Henry Ford Highland Park Lansing Macomb Mott Oakland Schoolcraft Washtenaw Wayne State Funding $9,124,620 14,386,175 5,029,082 19,944,700 22,107,775 10,066,950 15,047,870 7,471,350 6,772,975 22,224,133 % of Pop. 91% 7 15 93 20 100 100 66 91 2 Genesee 430,459 1161.59 Gladwin 21,896 630.48 Delta Kirtland Mid Michigan Montcalm 9,124,620 2,113,575 2,415,100 2,041,625 100 100 100 7 Gogebic 18,052 160.86 Gogebic 2,903,775 100 Grand Traverse 64,273 82.43 Kirtland Northwestern 2,113,575 5,253,822 2 100 Gratiot 38,982 1,062.99 Delta Grand Rapids Lansing Mid Michigan Montcalm Mott 9,124,620 12,608,479 19,944,700 2,415,100 2,041,625 10,066,950 100 2 100 60 100 86 Hillsdale 43,431 640.83 Glen Oaks Jackson Kellogg Lansing Monroe Schoolcraft Washtenaw 1,312,600 8,783,500 5,570,050 19,944,700 2,225,700 7,471,350 6,772,975 30 100 90 36 70 8 65 Houghton 35,446 0.00 Huron 34,951 86.03 9,124,620 33 281,912 166.76 Jackson Kellogg Lansing Mott Oakland Schoolcraft Washtenaw 8,783,500 5,570,050 19,944,700 10,066,950 15,047,870 7,471,350 6,772,975 100 98 100 98 3 1 35 Ingham , Delta Ionia 57,024 785.63 Grand Rapids Jackson Kalamazoo Kellogg Lansing Montcalm 12,608,479 8,783,500 6,032,017 5,570,050 19,944,700 2,041,625 100 47 24 84 100 100 Iosco 30,209 119.71 Alpena Delta Kirtland Mid Michigan 3,090,394 9,124,620 2,113,575 2,415,100 53 13 34 4 100 Table 8 continued State Comiunity College Funding by County - Sunaoary County Population Per Capita Value of Accessible State Funding Iron 13,175 $0.00 Isabella 54,624 358.11 Contributing Schools State Funding % of Pop. Delta Grand Rapids Kirtland Lansing Mid Michigan Montcalm Mott $9,124,620 12,608,479 2,113,575 19,944,700 2,415,100 2,041,625 10,066,950 1001 4 60 18 100 100 5 Jackson 149,756 317.01 Glen Oaks Henry Ford Jackson Kellogg Lansing Monroe Oakland Schoolcraft Washtenaw 1,312,600 14,386,175 8,783,500 5,570,050 19,944,700 2,225,700 15,047,870 7,471,350 6,772,975 3 6 100 100 100 24 6 54 100 Kalamazoo 223,411 132.20 Glen Oaks Grand Rapids Kalamazoo Kellogg Lake Michigan Lansing Southwestern 1,312,600 12,608,479 6,032,017 5,570,050 3,022,625 19,944,700 3,634,363 100 76 100 100 100 2 100 13,497 660.21 Kirtland Mid Michigan North Central Northwestern 2,113,575 2,415,100 1,854,000 5,253,822 85 21 72 100 500,631 56.10 Grand Rapids Kalamazoo Kellogg Lansing Montcalm Muskegon 12,605,479 6,032,017 5,570,050 19,944,700 2,041,625 5,877,650 ICG 82 40 2 100 100 2,415,100 2,041,625 5,877,650 5,253,822 1,398,825 47 40 49 6 100 9,124,620 14,386,175 5,029,082 22,107,775 10,066,950 15,047,870 7,471,350 4,601,758 6,772,975 22,224,133 15 26 55 91 100 94 48 86 38 26 Kalkaska Kent Keweenaw 1,701 0.00 Lake 6,583 767.78 Mid Michigan Montcalm Muskegon Northwestern West Shore 74,768 910.80 Delta Henry Ford Highland Park Macomb Mott Oakland Schoolcraft St. Clair Washtenaw Wayne Lapeer 101 Table 8 continued Stats Conraunlty College Funding by County - Summary County Leelanau Lenawee LlvingBton Luce Mackinaw Macomb Population 16,527 91,476 115,645 Per Capita Value of Accessible State Funding 5355.13 812.85 1,071.62 Contributing Schools North Central Northwestern 51,854,000 5,253,622 Henry Ford Highland Park Jackson Lansing Monroe Oakland Schoolcraft Washtenaw Wayne 14.386.175 5.029.082 8.783.500 19.944.700 2.225.700 15.047.870 7.471.350 6.772.975 22.224.133 Henry Ford Highland Park Jackson Lansing Macomb Monroe MOtt Oakland Schoolcraft Washtenaw Wayne 14.386.175 5.029.082 8.783.500 19.944.700 22,107,775 2.225.700 10,066,950 15.047.870 7.471.350 6.772.975 22.224.133 « of Pop. 33% 100 94 79 100 11 100 77 97 100 81 100 98 100 100 64 42 100 100 100 100 96 5,763 0.00 10,674 153.38 North Central 1,854,000 88 717,400 137.89 Henry Ford Highland Park Macomb Mott Oakland 14,386,175 5,029,082 22,107,775 10,066,950 15,047,870 7, 471,350 4,601,758 6,772,975 22,224,133 100 100 100 15 100 97 100 Northwestern West Shore 5,253,822 1.398.825 100 SuHuOiuIaat St. Clair Washtenaw Wayne Manistee State Funding 21,265 169.47 100 100 42 Marquette 70,887 6.39 Bay De Noc 2,561,277 18 Mason 25,537 269.16 Muskegon West Shore 5,877,650 1.398.825 100 9,124,620 12,608,479 2,113,575 2,415,100 2,041,625 5,877,650 6 39 9 96 100 27 2,561,277 46 Mecosta 37,308 311.49 Menominee 24,920 47.70 Delta Grand Rapids Kirtland Mid Michigan Montcalm Muskegon Bay De Noc 93 Table 6 continued State Comnunlty College Funding by County - Susmary County Population Per Capita ' Value of Accessible State Funding Contributing Schools t or State Funding Pop. Midland 75,651 $250.35 Delta Xlrtland Mid Michigan Montcalm Mott $9,124,620 2.113.575 2.415.100 2.041.625 10,066,950 Missaukee 12,147 768.92 Kirtland Mid Michigan Northwestern 2.113.575 2.415.100 5,253,822 100 100 92 133,600 579.36 Henry Ford Highland Park Jackson Macomb Monroe Oakland Schoolcraft Washtenaw Wayne 14,386,175 5,029,082 8,783,500 22,107,775 2,225,700 15,047,870 7,471,350 6,772,975 22,224,133 100 100 21 11 100 100 100 100 100 Monroe Montcalm Montmorency Muskegon 100% 27 100 32 67 53,059 406.42 Delta Grand Rapids Lansing Mid Michigan Montcalm Muskegon 9,124,620 12.608.479 19,944,700 2.415.100 2.041.625 5.877.650 4 100 13 43 100 49 8,936 417.17 Alpena Kirtland North Central 3,090,394 2.113.575 1,854,000 100 26 5 158,983 123.54 Grand Rapids Montcalm Muskegon 12.608.479 2.041.625 5.877.650 100 20 100 W e s t Siiuru s 700 r»e« K,7 Newaygo 38,202 541.44 Grand Rapids Mid Michigan Montcalm Muskegon West Shore 12,608,479 2,415,100 2,041,625 5,877,650 1,398,825 96 6 100 100 37 Oakland 1,083,592 97.54 Henry Ford Highland Park Jackson Lansing Macomb Monroe Mott Oakland Schoolcraft St. Clair Washtenaw Wayne 14,386,175 5,029,082 8,783,500 19,944,700 22,107,775 2,225,700 10,066,950 15,047,870 7,471,350 4,601,758 6,772,975 22,224,133 100 100 2 1 100 89 100 100 100 7 100 100 103 Table 6 continued 8tate C o m u n l t y College Funding by County - Suanary County Population Per Capita Value of Accessible State Funding Contributing Schools State Funding % of Pop. 56% 24 100 100 Oceana 22,454 5660.07 Grand Rapids Montcalm Muskegon West Shore $12,608,479 2,041,625 5,877,650 1,398,825 Ogemaw 18,661 667.39 Delta Kirtland Mid Michigan 9,124,620 2,113,575 2,415,100 88 100 98 8,854 237.43 Gogebic 2,903,775 72 20,146 328.53 Delta Kirtland Mid Michigan Montcalm West Shore 9,124,620 2,113,575 2,415,100 2,041,625 1,398,825 3 80 100 100 12 Oscoda 7,842 676.22 Alpena Kirtland Mid Michigan 3,090,394 2,113,575 2,415,100 65 100 49 Otsego 17,957 398.88 Alpena Kirtland North Central Northwestern 3,090,394 2,113,575 1,854,000 5,253,822 5 92 100 61 Ottawa 187,768 150.08 Grand Rapids Kalamazoo Kellogg Montcalm Muskegon 12,608,479 6,032,017 5,570,050 2,041,625 5,877,650 100 70 65 91 100 15,745 250■25 AXpCTiw North Central V SQO:3Q4 100 1,854,000 23 Ontonagon Osceola Presque isle 19,776 234.25 Delta Kirtland Mid Michigan 9,124,620 2,113,575 2,415,100 1 100 100 Saginaw 211,946 99.00 Delta Lansing Mid Michigan Montcalm Mott 9,124,620 19,944,700 2,415,100 2,041,625 10,066,950 100 9 1 2 100 Sanilac 39,928 242.32 Macomb Mott St. Clair 22,107,775 10,066,950 4,601,758 14 20 98 8,302 273.84 Bay De Noc 2,561,277 89 Roscommon Schoolcraft 104 Table B continued State Comunlty College Funding by County County Population Per Capita Value of Accessible State Funding S umary Contributing Schools State Funding \ of Pop. 69,770 $907.65 Delta Henry Ford Highland Park Jackson Lansing Mott Oakland Schoolcraft Washtenaw $9,124,620 14,366,175 5,029,082 8,783,500 19,944,700 10,066,950 15,047,870 7,471,350 6,772,975 70% 4 4 24 100 100 95 45 95 St. Clair 145,607 266.85 Henry Ford Highland Park Macomb Mott Oakland St. Clair Wayne 14,386,175 5,029,082 22,107,775 10,066,950 15,047,670 4,601,758 22,224,133 13 30 100 4 31 100 16 St. Joseph 56,913 332.21 Glen Oaka Kalamazoo Kellogg Lake Michigan Southwestern 1,312,600 6,032,017 5,570,050 3,022,625 3,634,363 100 100 100 100 100 Tuscola 55,498 379.40 Delta Mott Oakland St. Clair 9,124,620 10,066,950 15,047,870 4,601,758 97 100 11 8 Van Buren 70,060 400.84 Glen Oaks Grand Rapids Kalamazoo Kellogg Lake Michigan Southwestern 1,312,600 12,608,479 6,032,017 5,570,050 3,022,625 3,634,363 100 68 100 100 100 100 Washtenaw 282,937 Ford Highland Park Jackson Lansing Macomb Monroe Mott Oakland Schoolcraft Washtenaw Wayne 14.386,175 5,029,082 8,783,500 19,944,700 22,107,775 2,225,700 10,066,950 15,047,870 7,471,350 6,772,975 22,224,133 100 100 100 19 94 100 90 100 100 100 100 Henry Ford Highland Park JackBon Macomb Monroe Mott Oakland Schoolcraft Washtenaw Wayne 14,386,175 5,029,062 8,783,500 22,107,775 2,225,700 10,066,950 15,047,870 7,471,350 6,772,975 22,224,133 100 100 1 100 100 1 100 100 100 100 Kirtland Kid Michigan Northwestern West Shore .2,113,575 2,415,100 5,253,822 1,398,825 90 98 Shiawassee Wayne Wexford 2,111,687 26,360 45.17 .371.60 100 20 105 Table 9 Localities with no Community College within 50 Miles County Locality Population Closest School (d) 508 Bay De Noc 21 Bay De Noc 62 56 838 1,007 836 1,377 1,945 981 Delta Delta Alpena Delta Delta Alpena 54 54 52 54 54 52 422 2,832 651 3,818 231 Bay De Noc Gogebic Gogebic Bay De Noc Bay De Noc 90 78 77 85 72 North Central North Central North Central North Central North Central Alpena North Central North Central North Central North Central North Central North Central North Central North Central North Central North Central North Central 66 64 58 55 59 65 52 64 56 55 54 69 69 74 61 53 64 Alger Burt township Grand Island town Arenac Au Gres city Au Gres township Sims township Standish city Standish township Whitney township Baraga Arvon township Baraga township Covington townshi L'Anse township Spurr township Chippewa Bay Mills townshi Bruce township Chippewa township Dafter township Detour township Drummond township Hulbert township Kinross township Pickford township Raber township Rudyard township Sault Ste Marie city Soo township Sugar Island town Superior township Trout Lake townsh Houghton Adams township Calumet township Chassell township Duncan township Elm River townshi Franklin township Hancock city Hancock township Houghton city Laird township Osceola township Portage township Quincy township Schoolcraft towns Stanton township Torch Lake townsh 2,388 7,015 1,686 304 159 1,164 4,547 287 7,498 582 1,878 2,941 223 2,037 1,184 1,553 Gogebic Gogebic Gogebic Gogebic Gogebic Gogebic Gogebic Gogebic Gogebic Gogebic Gogebic Gogebic Gogebic Gogebic Gogebic Gogebic Huron Bad Axe city Bingham township Bloomfield townsh Chandler township 3,484 1,617 563 509 Delta Delta Delta Delta 787 1,610 279 1,083 806 835 208 6,566 1,360 569 1,270 14,689 2,165 441 990 429 517 89 99 91 63 68 93 89 88 90 62 94 81 87 102 70 95 63 60 68 54 106 Table 9 continued Localities with no Community College within 50 Miles County Locality Population Closest School (d) Huron continued Colfax township Dwight township Gore township Grant township Harbor Beach city Hume township Huron Township Lake township Lincoln township Meade township Paris township Pointe Aux Barque Port Austin towns Rubicon township Sand Beach townsh Sheridan township Sherman township Sigel township Verona township 1,936 917 125 778 2,089 714 376 800 868 777 624 15 1,474 766 1,358 694 1,155 599 1,196 Delta Delta St. Clair Delta St. Clair Delta Delta Delta Delta Delta St. Clair Delta Delta St. Clair St. Clair Delta St. Clair St. Clair St. Clair 55 64 67 53 65 59 70 59 65 57 60 62 66 69 58 56 59 62 64 Iosco Au Sable township Baldwin township Tawas City city Tawas township 2,312 1,670 2,009 1,465 Alpena Delta Alpena Alpena 54 52 53 52 Iron Bates township Caspian city Crystal Falls city Crystal Falls tow Gaastra city Hematite township Iron River city Iron River townsh Mansfield townshi Mastodon township Stambaugh city Stambaugh townshi 966 1,031 1,922 1,614 376 366 2,095 1,398 248 654 1,281 1,224 Bay De Noc Bay De Noc Bay De Noc Bay De Noc Bay De Noc Bay De Noc Gogebic Gogebic Bay De Noc Bay De Noc Gogebic Gogebic 73 75 64 64 75 77 79 79 69 62 75 76 Keweenaw Allouez township Eagle Harbor town Grant township Houghton township Sherman township 1,422 82 104 54 39 Gogebic Gogebic Gogebic Gogebic Gogebic Luce Columbus township Lakefield townshi McMillan township Pentland township 218 869 2,961 1,715 Bay De Noc Bay De Noc North Central North Central 71 69 75 60 Mackinaw Newton township Portage township 358 North Central 890 Bay De Noc 56 63 Marquette Champion township Chocolay township Ely township 346 Bay De Noc 6,025 Bay De Noc 1,946 Bay De Noc 96 109 101 100 93 70 59 60 107 Table 9 continued Localities with no Community College within 50 Miles County Marquette continued Locality Humboldt township Ishpeming city Ishpeming townshi Marquette city Marquette townshi Michigamme townsh Negaunee city Negaunee township Powell township Republic township Richmond township Sands township Tilden township Population 500 7,200 3,515 21,977 2,757 339 4,741 2,368 660 1,170 1,095 2,696 1,010 Closest School (d) 61 62 62 62 62 77 65 Bay De Noc Bay De Noc Bay De Noc Bay De Noc Bay De Noc Bay De Noc Bay De Noc Bay De Noc Bay De Noc Bay De Noc Bay De Noc Bay De Noc Bay De Noc 85 65 58 53 57 66 Menominee Menominee city Menominee townshi 9,398 Bay De Noc 3,956 Bay De Noc 52 53 Ontonagon Bohemia township Greenland townshi Interior township Stannard township 90 1,001 480 873 53 56 56 52 Sanilac Greenleaf townshi 667 St. Clair 51 Schoolcraft Germfask township Mueller township Seney township 542 Bay De Noc 206 Bay De Noc 185 Bay De Noc 55 51 52 TOTAL 214,037 Gogebic Gogebic Gogebic Gogebic 108 Table 10 Localities with a Community College 26 to 50 Miles County Locality Closest School Population ^v« To which community college's in 1990 did the residents of each county and the localities have access within 25 miles? B. To which community college/s in 1990 did the residents of each county and the localities have access within 50 miles? It was found that 92.7% of the State population live within 25 miles of a community college; another 4.9% live from 26 to 50 miles of a community college, and only 2.4% live 51 or more miles from a community college. More 156 important than these summary statistics is the specific identification of the localities with respect to access. The findings of this study listed accessibility by counties and the specific localities within the counties. The findings which report the localities within accessible distance are far different. Only 74% of the State's 1,627 localities are within 25 miles of a community college; 298 are from 26 to 50 miles of a community college; and 124 localities are 51 miles and beyond. This is an important issue in view of the extended community development and support roles of community colleges. Counties Per-capita State Funding for Accessible Community Colleges III. What was the Michigan per-capita dollar amount of State funds for all 29 community colleges in 1990? IV. What were the county per-capita amounts of State funds for each of the 83 counties in Michigan for 1990? What was the deviation from the mean for each county? The State per-capita dollar amount of State funding for all 29 community colleges in 1990 was $22.64 ($209,480,000 State funding divided by State population of 9,295,297). The per-capita values of accessible funds by county ranged from 0 to $1,071.62. $338.76. The mean for all 83 counties was The State per-capita figure of $22.64 cannot be compared with the county mean, because the county mean 157 includes the State funding for each accessible community college. Several counties have access to the same community college and portions of a county's population may be within 50 miles of 0 to 11 community colleges. Thus, State funding for a community college is shown as a value for each county's population within accessible distance. The per- capita value by county was the method used to compare the coi-ties. Community Colleges Per-capita State Funding for Populations with Access V. What was the per-capita funding of each of the 29 community colleges for populations within 25 miles and within 50 miles of each college? What was the deviation from the mean for each community college? The mean value for the colleges was $11.33, and the range for the colleges was from $.60 to $118.71. The wide range is accounted for by denser populations with multiple access and the other extreme of only one college in a sparsely populated area. A significant finding was the degree to which residents of some counties have multiple access. The per-capita figure is of little meaning without further analysis to define specifically the effects of multiple access. The specific computer listings of each college with a list of populations within accessible distance is useful in defining potential students for each college and for examining further the effects of multiple 158 access. This is discussed further with the conclusions and recommendations for further research. State Funding and Population Shifts during the Last 20 Years Affecting Access VI. Have any significant shifts occurred from 1970 to 1990 in state population distribution or State funding distribution which may have affected accessibility? Significant shifts were defined in Chapter 3 as increases or decreases 10% greater than the change in population or funding for the entire State from 1970 to 1990. Four counties had significant percentage decreases in population and 45 counties had significant increases. State funding increased 448% for the State from 1970 to 1990. The percentage of change for each of the community colleges was calculated. Eight colleges deviated more from the percentage change for the state as a whole than the State trend. These changes suggest that accessibility has been affected, but several factors other than population changes and number of students being served affect State funding. To apply the effect of the population and funding shifts would require further examination into the other factors affecting accessibility as discussed with recommendations for further research. 159 Conclusions Based on the findings of this study, the following conclusions were drawn: 1. For the State as a whole, funding sources for community college operations has remained relatively stable. State funding has varied only 9% during the last 20 years as the percentage of operating revenues of community colleges. State funding for the entire state in 1990 was 38% of operating revenues. State funding steadily increased to 42% in 1970 and 47% in 1980 before decreasing to 38% in 1990. Tuition revenues increased the most, 5% (rounded to 4% in Table 3), followed by local tax revenues and "other" sources at 2% each from 1980 to 1990, compensating for the 9% decrease in State funding. 2. The 29 community colleges vary greatly in their sources of revenue. State funding is unevenly distributed among the 29 community colleges. In 1990 the range of local tax support among the colleges was from 4% to 48% of operating revenues. Tuition support ranged from 15% to 38%. State funding ranged from 21% to 64%. The variation among the colleges has increased during the last 20 years. For schools with low percentages of local support or no local support, State funding has been the compensating revenue source. The State funding is provided from State revenues collected Statewide. The increase in operating revenues from tuition has been Statewide. 160 3. Factors other than the district in which a person resides affect the decision to attend a community college. The students paying in-district tuition ranged from 16% to 96% among the colleges, with a State mean of 70%; therefore, some students select a school based on factors other than the district in which they reside. Other students pay out- of-district tuition to attend a community college when one is not available in their localities. This also means that local tax support for out-of-district students does not contribute to the college a person is attending. In effect, if a student does not live in a community college district, the compensation for local tax support is the burden on the student of paying out-of-district tuition rates. State funding also compensates for the lack of local tax support. 4. The population of Michigan is served well by community colleges when considering the more densely populated areas. The percentage of population within dcuessj.ble uistance is high. The number of localities and land area is significantly lower. In Michigan, 92.7% of the population live within 25 miles (Range A) of a community college. Another 4.9% live from 26 to 50 miles (Range B) from a community college, and 2.4% of the population live 51 or more miles (Range C) from a community college. Although 92.7% of the people live in Range A, this includes only 74% of the State's 1,627 localities. Ranges B and C account for 298 and 124 localities, respectively. 161 The lack of community development and support services which have grown to be associated with community colleges may be a concern for localities without community college identity. It is possible that other organizations may serve to compensate for the lack of community college services. The extent to which substitution of other services may exist is discussed with recomendations for further research. The accessibility statistics by distance from a community college differ from in-district and out-of­ district statistics. Headley's research (1990) showed that 7.2 of Michigan's 9.2 million people (79%) lived in a community college district, providing local tax support. Less than half of the state's land area and only 77% of the SEV (State equalized value) for local tax support were included in community college districts (pp. 8 - 11). The effect is that 92.7% of the people in Michigan live within 25 linear miles of a community college (findings from this research), but only 77% provide tax support (Headley's findings). The difference between in-district and out-of-district tuition can be a compensating factor, but only if a person has an accessible community college. 5. Per-capita values of accessible funding vary from 0 to $1,071.62. The variation of accessible community colleges in both Ranges A and B (within 50 miles) to 11 colleges. is from 1 Some people are beyond 50 miles of a community college and do not directly benefit from State community college funding, while others can choose among 11 162 colleges. This multiplicity of access was much greater than envisioned at the onset of this research. High per-capita values resulted from multiplicity of access or sparsely populated counties with access to one community college. 6. The per-capita values of State funding by community colleges for populations within 50 miles are greatly affected by multiplicity of access. The supporting data is informative and permits the identification of specific localities and population in Ranges A and B, but the percapita values cannot be compared without further research to quantify the regional areas where residents have access to many community colleges. Per-capita amounts in 1990 ranged from $.60 to $118.71. 7. Population shifts in Michigan during the last 20 years may have affected accessibility. The greatest shift was the 21% decrease in Wayne County population. The State's population increased only 4.6% (8.8 to 9.2 million) from 1970 to 1990. The Wayne County decrease amounted to 555,064 people or 6% of the total state population in 1990. Forty-five counties exceeded the State increase in population (4.6%) by more than 10% (14.6% or greater increase). In comparing the changes in State funding from 1970 to 1990 for the 29 community colleges, all colleges' State support increased. Eight community colleges had increases significantly greater than the State as a whole. Wayne County Community College increased the most, 14.05 times or 163 1,405% compared to a 3.368 or 336% increase in the Consumer Price Index (U.S. Government Printing Office). Other factors besides population being served could account for this increase in funding. The extreme inverse relationship between the decreased population being served and increased state funding might warrant further investigation to determine the programming and enrollment that warranted the increase in State funding. Recommendations The findings of this study and the researcher's experiences lead to the following recommendations: 1. A Statewide millage would increase community college revenues and decrease the disparity among colleges is State support. It is recommended that this millage would establish a minimum amount, and localities could increase community college revenues by local referendum or by retaining the present millage if the rate were higher than the proposed statewide millage. Although it is believed by State administrators that this would be difficult to pass, it appears to be the logical means to distributing funds more equally throughout the state. 2. Standardized tuition among the community colleges in the state might be a part of the millage proposal. If this tuition amount was lower for the voters, it might be a more politically feasible proposition than just a statewide millage. 164 3. Four areas in the State stand out as needing community college services: Huron County and the northern localities of the thumb-area of Michigan, the Eastern Upper Peninsula, the Central Upper Peninsula, and the Northwestern Upper Peninsula. Because of the sparse population in the Upper Peninsula, perhaps extension campuses could be established from existing community colleges. It seems that this would still provide for community identity with community college services. The Cheboygan area in Northern Lower Michigan might also be considered. 4. The community college role being fulfilled by some four-year universities should be examined. Perhaps a separate community college division to serve the geographic areas would lead to the extension of State funds for community colleges to those areas and also provide the community services currently associated with community colleges. 5. The multiple-access areas and the forces which cause the high percentages of out-of-district enrollment should be examined by the individual community colleges and State education administrators to determine if administrative costs might be decreased by possibly combining overlapping services. Further research is needed and may serve to answer many of the questions and issues derived from the findings of this study. follow. These recommendations for further research 165 Recommendations for Further Research The following recommendations are made for further research: 1. The population shifts and funding changes from 1970 to 1990 were more significant than envisioned when this research was commenced. More detailed analysis could be done to study the change in funding for each of the community colleges and the change in populations for the localities served by each community college. This should take into account the residence localities of current students at each college. 2. The variation in community college revenue sources was compared in percentages; another approach would be to compare dollar amounts of changes in funding in relation to the Consumer Price Index. 3. The multiplicity of access issue should be researched further to determine the factors which affect the decision of college to attend when several colleges are within daily commuting distance. The multiplicity of access was much greater than expected at the beginning of this research. It is believed that this greatly affects the efficiency of State funding. 4. Research could be done to compare the location of a person's residence with the community college in which they are enrolled. State reports. This information is not available from any It is believed that this might help to determine the number of people attending community colleges 166 for specific, unique programs. It might also provide information as to how the populations without community colleges within an accessible distance are meeting their needs for typical community college programs. This would include examining the three, four-year Universities which are described in some state studies as serving a community college role. The effect of this as compared to the presence of several four-year universities in regions where 11 community colleges are accessible has not been explained. 5. A more detailed analysis of the services offered by community colleges other than traditional programming might help to determine different delivery methods for these services to people without access to a community college. It is because of the expanded economic development and community services role of community colleges that accessibility has gained importance. 6. Last, the methodology employed in this research has the potential for several applications. The use of the Pythagorean Theorem in computer programming to determine distance as a variable compared to another variable proved to be an accurate and expeditious procedure. This research could be replicated in other states to compare intrastate access to community colleges or any other distributive services. APPENDICES APPENDIX A 167 Alpena Community College 1952 Alpena, Michigan— Alpena County 1989-90 Headcount 3,843 and FYES 1,445 Alpena Community College was founded in 1952 and was incorporated into the Alpena School district making it a K14 system. In 1979 voters approved separation of the college from the public school district. The vote levied a 1.5 charter millage and established the Alpena Community College Board of Trustees to govern the institution. Alpena Community College offered classes in the former Alpena High School and the first graduation class in 1954 numbered 2 3 students. in 1957. The campus moved to its current site The construction of what is now Van Lare Hall was the first community college classroom building in the state to be financed jointly by the State of Michigan and the local school district. In addition to offering associates in arts, commerce and science degrees, AAS in Concrete Technology is a program unique to Alpena Community College. It is a two-year curriculum with specialized courses covering all aspects of the concrete manufacturing industry. Although the Alpena Community College district is in Alpena County, the college offers both credit and non-credit programs in its service area which also includes the counties of Alcona, Iosco, Montmorency, and Presque Isle. The college offers some off-campus classes. Source: 1989-90 Catalog, pp. 12, 17, 78. 168 Bay de Noc Community College 1962 Escanaba, Michigan— Delta County 1989-90 Headcount 3,664 and FYES 1,603 Bay de Noc Community College was established in 1962 by the voters of Delta County. It began serving students the following fall in the old Escanaba Area High School. Today the campus consists of eight buildings located on a 150-acre site at the northeast corner of the city of Escanaba. When the College opened its doors in 1963, it enrolled approximately 200 students. The number of students has increased ten fold with enrollment in programs of study that include occupational, transfer, and community service curricula. The college has a Special Needs Office and a Learning Resources Center. Source: 1989-90 Catalog, pp. iii, 9. 169 Delta College 1957 University Center, Michigan— Bay County 1989-90 Headcount 17,339 and FYES 7,054 The institution now known as Delta College was established in 1957. The voters in Bay, Saginaw, and Midland counties formed a new community college district and authorized a levy of 1.5 mills for the facility and operation. The region had formerly been served by Bay City Junior College. However, as demand grew in the tri-county area, the percent of students from outside the Bay City Public School District grew to the point that non-resident enrollment equaled that which was in-district. This prompted community leaders in Bay, Saginaw, and Midland counties to form an organization to study the needs of higher education in the Saginaw Valley area. The final result was Delta College opening its doors to students in 1961. The college campus at University Center, Michigan, in Bay County is situated almost midway between the tri­ counties' major cities of Bay City, Saginaw, and Midland. This area is one of the major concentrations of population within the state. Delta's enrollment has increased steadily since opening in 1961. Delta currently provides educational courses and programs on campus and throughout 30 neighborhood centers. Source: 1989-90 Catalog, p. 12. 170 Glen Oaks Community College 1965 Centreville, Michigan— St. Joseph County 1989-90 Total Headcount 2,280 and FYES 861 Glen Oaks Community College was established in the voters of St. Joseph County. Voters 1965 by elected a board of trustees and approved a charter millage for its operation and support. The college opened its doors in the fall of 1967. It was housed in temporary facilities at White Pigeon High School until February of 1969 when it moved to its permanent campus of over 300 acres. The campus consists of one large, architectually modern all-purpose building. It was designed for easy expansion to facilitate studentpopulation growth and to meet changing educational needs. In 1971 a vocational addition was constructed to house modern instructional facilities and equipment for a wide variety of post-secondary technical programs. In 1977-78, tennis courts, a baseball field, and a softball field were added. Glen Oaks is located in the center of St. Joseph County, its in-district area. However, it has an only slightly higher tuition rate for students residing in what is considered its service area. The service area includes Elkkart, La George and, Steuben Counties in Indiana; Branch County, Michigan, and White Pigeon; Three Rivers and Constance High School Districts in Cass County, Michigan. Source: 1989-90 Catalog, p. 1. 171 Gogebic Community College 1965 Ironwood, Michigan— Gogebic County 1989-90 Headcount 1,450 and FYES 751 Voters first approved the formation of Ironwood Junior College in 1932. Then in 1965, they approved the Gogebic Community College District of Gogebic County. As the college ceased to be part of the Ironwood Public Schools in July 1966, there was an immediate need to develop adequate facilities to accommodate growing enrollment. Existing programs were housed in the high school building and in rented space within the community. By February 1970, a General Academic Core Building was completed at the new campus site at Mt. Zion. In the fall of 1973, a new Vocational-Technical Center was built to house expanded career occupational programs. The campus is located on the mountain side in "Big Snow Country" and offers a program in Ski Facilities Management. The school provides housing rental at $1,100 a school year per student for a six-person apartment (1990). The housing accommodates students living beyond driving distance in sparsely populated areas. The location on the Wisconsin border attracts Wisconsin students who pay the same tuition rate as in-state, out-of-district students ($34 per credit hour, 1990). Source: 1989-90 Catalog, pp. 11 and catalog insert page on costs. 172 Grand Rapids Junior College 1914 Grand Rapids, Michigan— Kent County 1989-90 Headcount 26,574 and FYES 6,987 Grand Rapids Junior College was established in 1914 by the Grand Rapids Board of Education and was the first junior college in Michigan. Its founding followed a resolution passed by the faculty of the University of Michigan which encouraged the establishment of junior colleges in the larger cities of the state. The college was located in the Grand Rapids Central High School building. It consisted of a faculty of eight who taught courses in rhetoric and composition, mathematics, history, biology, physics, Latin, and German. In 1990 the campus consisted of four classroom buildings, a learning center and library, a student center, and a technical education center. The college utilizes several off-campus facilities for instruction throughout the Grand Rapids area. The curriculum has grown to include more than 1,000 liberal arts and occupational courses, as well as nearly that many community service offerings, seminars, workshops, and other educational activities. In 1950 the college offered one occupational curriculum in practical nursing. This has been expanded to the current occupational curriculum offerings that number 45. The college has grown from a first-year graduating class of 49 to 1,100 students in 1988 that earned degrees 173 and certificates. Each year 20,000 students utilize the College services. Although the college has not changed its name from junior to community college in keeping with the evolution of two-year college movement; its purpose, function, and role are very much community centered. Source: 1989-90 Catalog, p. 9. 174 Henry Ford Community College 1938 Dearborn, Michigan— Wayne County 1989-90 Headcount 23,729 and F Y E S 7,571 Henry Ford Community College was founded in 1938 as Fordson Community College. It began as a junior college division of the old Fordson School District. Classes were held in the Fordson High School for an enrollment of less than twenty students. During the latter years of World War II classes were suspended, and the school districts in the City of Dearborn were annexed by the Fordson School District. The new district became the School District of the City of Dearborn, and in January, 1946, the name Dearborn Junior College was adopted. The Dearborn Board of Education was given funds realized from the liquidation of assets of Henry Ford Trade School. The school was being closed and the Board of Education was to use the money to expand technical and scientific education at the community college level. The name of Dearborn Junior College was changed to Henry Ford Community College in September, 1952. In 1956 the Ford Motor Company donated 75 acres of land to the college. Subsequently, the voters of Dearborn approved a special millage to raise funds for the construction of buildings on the new campus site. Most of the planned construction has been completed including a fine arts center and auditorium which were opened in 1981. Over 900 courses are offered at Henry Ford Community College. Source: 1989-90 Catalog, pp. 7, 8. 175 Highland Park Community College 1918 Highland Park, Michigan— Wayne County 1989-90 Headcount 6,278 and FYES 1,314 Established in 1918, Highland Park Community College is the second oldest community college in Michigan. It was authorized by a vote of the people of the Highland Park school district and since that time has remained an intregral part of that system. In the years following World War II, the college began to expand its services to those outside the boundaries of the city. It has enrolled increasingly large numbers of students from all parts of the Detroit area, as well as those from out-state Michigan, from other states, and foreign countries. In September, 1962, the Board of Education changed its designation from "junior college" to "community college" in keeping with the current development in post-secondary education. Highland Park strives to balance course offerings so that educational opportunity shall be open to all students according to need, interest, and ability. One method of obtaining this balance is that the same courses and services are offered in the late afternoon, evening, and Saturday mornings as are offered on week days. Source: 1989-90 Catalog, p. 4. 176 Jackson Community College 1928 Jackson, Michigan— Jackson County 1989-90 Headcount 12,906 and 3,687 FYES Jackson Junior College was established in 1928 and was affiliated with the Union School District of Jackson (now Jackson Public Schools). In 1962, voters approved the establishment of Jackson Community College which made the existing Junior College independent of the school district. Voters approved millage for the operation of the college in 1964, and in July, 1965, the leadership of the institution was entrusted to the Jackson Community College Board of Trustees. In the early years, programs concentrated in the arts and sciences. Later, the scope of the curriculum was broadened to include programs of a technical, occupational, continuing education, and general nature. Michigan School of the Arts was established at Jackson Community College to offer music and theatre programs. The Community and Business Services Division includes a Conference office, a Job Training Institute, a Personnel Development Institute, an Entrepreneurial Training Program and a Small Business Center. Source: 1989-90 Catalog, pp. 4, 41, 83, 84. 177 Kalamazoo Valley Community College 1966 Kalamazoo, Michigan— Kalamazoo County 1989-90 Headcount 16,854 and FYES 4,849 On August 1, 1966, the voters of the nine school districts in the Kalamazoo Valley Intermediate School District approved the establishment of Kalamazoo Valley Community College, elected a Board of Trustees, and approved a 1.5 mill tax. The College opened in September, 1968, offering its first class of 1,518 students a wide range of courses including vocational, technical, health services, social services, general education, liberal arts, and community service programs. The College campus has undergone continued growth and development. A significant expansion of service and facilities occurred in the fall of 1983 when the college renovated an 8,700-square-foot facility in downtown Kalamazoo, which was designed to meet the training and retraining needs of business and industry. Additionally, a number of other facilities are utilized throughout the community to provide easy access for all who desire it. In the fall of 1987, the voters approved a 1 mill tax increase for the support of the college. Kalamazoo Valley Community College will use this additional support for the continuing growth and improvement of its services and facilities. Source: 1989-90 Catalog, pp. 9, 10. 178 Kellogg Community College 1956 Battle Creek, Michigan— Calhoun County 1989-90 Headcount 13,201 and FYES 2,961 This public, two-year college was founded in 1956. It is situated in one of the most picturesque sections of Battle Creek. The campus recently received the White House Award of Merit for Landscape Design and Development. The campus features rolling hills, small lakes, covered walkways, a permanent central mall with a fountain and reflecting pools on three levels. The campus includes seven academic complexes with computer centers, a Learning Resource Center, industrial and technological labs and broadcast studios— in addition to classrooms, labs, and learning clinics. Source: 1990 College folder and packet, Pages not numbered. 179 Kirtland Community College 1966 Roscommon, Michigan— Roscommon County 1989-90 Headcount 2,654 and FYES 956 Kirtland Community College was established in 1966 by the electorate from six local K-12 school districts (Crawford-AuSable, Fairview, Gerrish-Higgins, Houghton Lake, Mio-AuSable, and West Branch-Rose City.) This favorable vote formed Michigan's largest community college district. The district consists of all or part of nine counties and covers 2,500 square miles. Kirtland opened its doors in the fall of 1968, serving 160 students. At the time, the 160-acre, wooded campus consisted of a partially completed Student Center and six portable classrooms. In June, 1970, 44 students earning associate degrees comprised its first graduating class. The college now serves over 2,400 students in both credit and non-credit courses. The campus has grown to 180 acres, five large buildings and a nature/fitness trail. The college offers many community-service programs including a Retired Senior Volunteer Program (R.S.V.P.), and a Volunteer Incentive Service Credit Account Program (VISCAP), which is being piloted in Michigan through Kirtland. VISCAP in intended to provide volunteer respite and support services to the elderly, to provide a State volunteer credit banking system, and to offer credit redemption to volunteers for those in need of services. Source: 1989-90 Catalog, pp. 5, 25, 26. 180 Lake Michigan College 1946 Benton Harbor, Michigan— Berrien County 1989-90 Headcount 7,768 and FYES 1,728 This public, two-year college was organized as the Junior College of Benton Harbor in 1946. was changed to Lake Michigan College. classes in Benton Harbor and in Niles. In 1963 the name The school offers Extension centers in four high-school buildings in the district also offer classes. The college offers corporate and community services. The Executive Director of this service center lists the primary missions as follows: 1. To provide on-site or on-campus training customized to the exact needs of business and industry. 2. To assist businesses in obtaining funds appropriate for training from state and federal government sources. 3. To produce instructional materials such as training workbooks and video tapes. 4. io develop and produce installation, maintenance and operating instructional manuals. 5. To host teleconferences to keep businesses informed of the latest technological innovations. The college has separate offices for a Small Business Services Center, Conference Services, Continuing Education Services, and a Learning Resources Center. Source: 1989-91 Catalog, pp. 7 - 1 4 . 181 Lansing Community College 1957 Lansing, Michigan— Ingham County 1989-90 Headcount 48,071 and FYES 12,087 Lansing Community College was established in April of 1957 by the Lansing Public Schools. It opened its doors that fall with an enrollment of 425 students. Its curriculum included courses in civil, mechanical and electronics technologies, practical nursing and apprenticeship programs. In 1964 the Lansing Community College District was formed by a vote of the area's citizens. A six-member Board of Trustees was also elected to govern the institution. The 14-acre campus has 9 buildings. The campus houses several service organizations and community development offices including a Small Business Development Center, a Management Development Center, a Business and Industry Institute, and a Business Development Services Center. An Asian Resource Center operates as part of the international studies programs. New programs in fine arts and commercial art are offered by departments of media and performing arts. The following organizations and agencies operate at Lansing Community College: The Center for Aging Education, Student Development Services, Women's Resource Center, Career Exploration and Assessment Center, and a Department of Academic Enrichment Services, which offers developmental programs. Source: 1989-90 Catalog, pp. 2, 7, 80 - 130. 182 Macomb Community College 1954 Warren, Michigan— Macomb County 1989-90 Headcount 50,410 and FYES 14,335 The citizens of Macomb County organized to establish a community college. Classes were first offered in 1954. The South campus opened in 1965. The Macomb Center for the Performing Arts is located at the college; and the Macombers, a show choir ensemble is composed of students enrolled at Macomb Community College. Their two-fold purpose encompasses both instruction and community service. The college has a Single Parent/Homemaker Personal Support Office which offers classes to prepare the students to make informed educational and career decisions. The Professional and Continuing Education (PACE) program offers courses for skills upgrading, licensing certification or renewal, job improvement, advancement and personal enrichment. An Economic Development/Community Small Business Development Office operates on campus. Senior Citizens receive a 10 percent discount on all college services. advocacy services. A Special Services Department provides A Speakers' Bureau of administrators and faculty members is available for public speaking engagements. Source: 1988-90 Catalog, pp. 7, 13 - 18. 183 Mid Michigan Community College 1964 Harrison, Michigan— Clare County 1989-90 Headcount 4,839 and FYES 1,351 In 1964, a Citizens Advisory Council was formed to determine the feasibility of establishing a community college in the Clare/Gladwin County area. A year later a report completed by the Council recommended the formation of a local community college and was submitted to the Michigan Department of Public Institution for its approval. Michigan's 25th community college was established in September, 1965, by the voters. A governing Board of Trustees was elected, and a 1.5 mills construction and operating levy was approved. Construction of the new instructional facility began in May, 1968, on a 560-acre site located in the rural environment of northern Michigan between the cities of Harrison and Clare. The college opened its doors to students in the fall of 1968. Its first classes were housed in temporary facilities throughout the area. By November 1969, all classes were moved to the present campus location. Since the college opened its doors to 196 students in 1968, it has continued to provide services to an ever­ growing student population. Source: 1989-90 Catalog, pp. 8, 9. 184 Monroe County Community College 1964 Monroe, Michigan— Monroe County 1989-90 Headcount 7,359 and FYES, 1,754 Voters formed the Monroe County Community College District in June, 1964, to provide educational opportunities for the residents of Monroe County. The college began serving students in October, 1967. It provides a comprehensive education program for transfer to senior institutions, associate degrees in many occupational areas, training and retraining for business and industry, a number of student support services, and other courses and services to meet the educational needs of Monroe County residents. Monroe County is unique in that it is near many major universities. Within easy driving distance is the University of Michigan (40 miles), Eastern Michigan University (35 miles), University of Toledo (20 miles), Wayne State University (35 miles), and the University of Detroit (35 miles). The campus has recently undergone a major renovation project allowing for state-of-the-art teaching facilities in the technology areas. This project also included an addition to house classrooms, the art studio, and administrative offices. A long-range campus development plan includes buildings for physical education and performing arts. Source: 1989-90 Catalog pp. 2, 3. 185 Montcalm Community College 1965 Sidney, Michigan— Montcalm County 1989-90 Headcount 6,176 and FYES 1,617 Montcalm Community College was established in March, 1965, by a vote of the people of Montcalm County. The first Board of Trustees was also elected and a one-mill tax was levied for the College's financial support. Montcalm Community College began liberal arts instruction in fall 1966 at Central Montcalm High School. Construction on the first buildings to be located on the campus site began in October, 1966. In September, 1967, these buildings were dedicated by Lt. Gov. William Milliken and the first classes were held on campus. A part of the mission statement of Montcalm Community college is to provide a center and resources for community services— educational, health, recreation, cultural, and economical development. Source: 1989-90 Catalog, p. 1. 186 Mott Community College 1923 Flint, Michigan— Genesee County 1989-90 Headcount 23,960 and FYES 5,902 Mott Community College opened its doors in 1923 as Flint Junior College. At that time it was governed by the Flint Board of Education. It occupied classrooms in Central High School until 1931, when it was moved to an adjacent building. The campus remained housed in this building until 1955 when it moved to its present location. In 1960, its name was changed to Flint Community Junior College. In 1969, voters of the Genesee Intermediate School District approved the expansion of the college district, elected a seven-member board of trustees and approved a 1.4 operating levy for the new district. A few months later, governing of the institution was transferred from the Flint Board of Education to the Board of Trustees of Genesee Community College. The name was changed again in February 1973 upon the death of Charles Stewart Mott, an area philanthropist. The campus consists of 12 buildings including a vocational training and job placement center named in honor of the late labor leader, Walter P. Reuther. Of exceptional benefit to the college is the Cultural Center which is located adjacent to the campus. This multi-million dollar center includes an art center, planetarium, theater, museum, technology center, and music center. Source: 1989-90 Catalog, p. 6. 187 Muskegon Community College 1926 Muskegon, Michigan— Muskegon County 1989-90 Headcount 10,995 and FYES 2,934 Muskegon Junior College was established in 1926 by the Muskegon Board of Education. It was part of the pioneering movement in two-year institutions since only a few others existed in Michigan at the time. Classes were first held in the Muskegon Senior High School, but by 1934 enrollment had grown beyond the building's capacity. The college moved to the old Hackley building in downtown Muskegon. This site remained the center of campus activity for a period of about 17 years when Muskegon Junior College's primary focus was a "college transfer" program. Its curriculum was geared to those students intending to complete at least four years of college. Then in June of 1951, after the passage of the Act 189, the name and scope of the college was changed. Its name changed to Muskegon Community College and the nature of its programs broadened to reflect a larger number of student interests and needs. Courses were added in retailing, the vocations, the technical fields, public health and the trades. These curriculum additions were reflections of the movement within the county to enable young people to prepare for a specific field of employment in two years of training beyond high school. 188 As enrollment continued to climb, the Muskegon Board of Education, which still operated the college, utilized space in many of the buildings as well as other community facilities. By the early 1960s classes were operating full­ time in three buildings and part-time in eight others. The needs of the college had clearly outgrown current facilities. A special Citizens Committee was formed by the Board of Education to study the district's entire community college program. The study resulted in the following recommendations: that the college be separate from the public school system, that a county-wide community college district be created, that a board of trustees be elected to plan, build, and operate the school, and that millage be voted to build and operate the college. In April 1963, the county's voters approved the recommendations of the committee and immediate steps were taken to purchase the current iii-acre campus site. By the fall of 1967 the entire campus complex was completed and placed in service. When the new district was created, the name of the college was changed to Muskegon County Community College. However, in 1969, at the request of the Board of Trustees, the State Board of Education approved changing the name back to the original Muskegon Community College. Source: 1989-90 Catalog, pp. 7, 8. 189 North Central Michigan College 1958 Petoskey, Michigan— Emmet County 1989-90 Headcount 2,73 3 and FYES 923 North Central Michigan College was established in 1958 to meet the needs of the people in North-central Michigan. The philosophy and mission statement of the college states that it is committed to the inherent right of all citizens to benefit from post-secondary education at a reasonable cost and in geographic proximity to their homes. The college serves the community by providing resource persons and facilities and plays a leadership role in the educational advancement of the area. The mission of the college is to facilitate and provide academic and occupational education as well as to serve as a resource to the community. An evening college program operates for students working full time during the day. Upper division classes are offered on campus in the evening and on weekends by Michigan State University, Eastern Michigan University, Central Michigan University, and Lake Superior State University. Source: 1989-91 Catalog, p. 2. 190 Northwestern Michigan College 1951 Traverse City, Michigan— Grand Traverse County 1989-90 Headcount 12,742 and 3,136 FYES Northwestern Michigan College was founded in 1951 by a group of local citizens who wanted to provide access to affordable college education for area residents. They first attempted to establish a four-year college. When it opened in the fall of 1951 the college was under the control of the Traverse City Board of Education. Liberal arts and pre-professional courses of the freshman and sophomore level were offered; in addition, the curricula included a wide variety of vocational programs and part-time courses geared to the needs of the community such as engineering, business, secretarial, agriculture, conservation and civil technology. Legislation allowing districts to combine to support a community college was a direct result of the movement of the people of the Grand Traverse area to broaden the basis for support of their college. Thus, Northwestern Michigan College became the first community college under the Michigan Community College Act. NMC is unique with its Great Lakes Maritime Academy, which trains ship officers in a three-year program. The Center for Business and Industry is actively involved in providing consultants for businesses. Sources: 1989-90 Catalog, pp. 12, 13. 191 Oakland Community College 1964 Auburn Heights, Michigan— Oakland County 1989-90 Headcount 51,424 and FYES 15,965 The college is a multi-campus complex with the main campus and administrative offices in Auburn Heights. Four other campuses— Highland Lakes, Royal Oak, Southfield, and Farmington Hills (Orchard Ridge Campus) serve a variety of interests and community needs. The district is coterminal with the Intermediate School District boundaries. Some of the newer facilities include a General Assembly building; a Science Building; a Central Service Facility; a Student Union with a cafeteria, student lounge, and offices for student organizations. The college surves both urban and rural towns. The college offers some unique programs in Aviation Flight technology and Publication Production Technology. Also, basic police training courses are available in cooperation with the police academy and Marygrove College. Several Allied Health programs of study and Child Development programs originated at Oakland Community College. Oakland Community College has the highest headcount and FYES of all the community colleges in Michigan. Source: College Blue Book. 1989, pp. 326, 327. 192 Schoolcraft College 1961 Livonia, Michigan— Wayne County 1989-90 Headcount 25,497 and FYES 5,411 Schoolcraft College was founded in October, 1961, to serve the people of northwest Wayne County. The College opened for classes in 1964 with an enrollment of 2,018 students. Since that time, over 300,000 persons have studied at Schoolcraft. The college district is composed of five public school districts: Clarenceville, Garden City, Livonia, Northville, Plymouth-Canton, and a part of the Novi Community Schools. The main campus, consisting of nine buildings, is located on a 183-acre site at the western edge of the City of Livonia. College centers exist in two other locations in the district: Radcliff Center serves Garden City and other nearby areas, and classes at the Plymouth-Canton High School serve the area, making evening classes available. The college offers several programs of assistance to businesses including contract education, apprenticeship and journey-persons programs. The Procurement Program is a new, innovative business agency, which assists businesses in acquiring government contracts. Source: 1989-90 Catalog, pp. 5, 6, 23, 24. 193 Southwestern Michigan College 1964 Dowagiac, Michigan— Cass County 1989-90 Headcount 5,215 and 1,723 FYES In May, 1964, an advisory committee report was submitted to the Lewis Cass Intermediate Board of Education which recommended the establishment of a community college in Cass County. The Board approved the Advisory Committee's report and submitted an application to organize the college to the Michigan Department of Education. The application was approved, and in November, 1964, the electorate of Cass County approved the establishment of Southwestern Michigan College and a 1.5 mill property tax to finance the institution. Construction of the new campus began in September, 1965, on the 158-acre site in La Grange Township chosen by the Board of Trustees. Doors opened the following September with the completion of the Arts and Science Buildings, and the library. In 1975, the size of the campus was increased with the gift of an 80-acre wooded area by Everett Claspy of Dowagiac. This area is used for biological studies, as a nature preserve, and for outdoor sports and recreation. Several buildings have been added to the campus since the original construction in 1965. A total of nine buildings make up the current campus site which has a history of continuing growth and increasing enrollment. Source: 1989-90 Catalog, pp. 14, 15. 194 St. Clair County Community College 1923 Port Huron, Michigan— St. Clair County 1989-90 Headcount 11,388 and FYES 2,567 St. Clair Community College began as the junior college department of the Port Huron School District. called Port Huron Junior College. It was then It was established in 1923 by an act of the Board of Education of the Port Huron School District. The St. Clair County Community College District was established in 1967 by a vote of the people. This act formed an independent, county-wide community college, and final authorization was given by the State Board of Education in January, 1968. During the early years, the college curriculum was largely academic. Port Huron Junior College had developed a tradition of academic excellence. Since 1954, a variety of vocational and technical programs have been added in keeping with the college's revised mission, "to provide a broad range of post-secondary educational opportunities." The Community and Business Services Division offers customized training programs, business and professional development programs, and apprenticeship programs. Source: 1989-90 Catalog, p. 10. 195 Washtenaw Community College 1965 Ann Arbor, Michigan— Washtenaw County 1989-90 Headcount 21,309 and FYES 5,300 Washtenaw Community College was established in January, 1965, by a vote of the citizens of Washtenaw County. In Septembe,r 1966, classes began with 1,200 students enrolled in 30 different programs. Temporary facilities were utilized in the Willow Run area during construction of the main campus. Classes were held in an old elementary school, a fire station and a bowling alley. were taught in the basement of a church. Health programs However, in 1969, the permanent, 235-acre campus opened with the Technical and Industrial, Liberal Arts and Science Buildings. An Activities Building, the Occupatioanl Education Building and the Student Center Building have been added to the campus as well as a Family Education Building which houses a child-care facility for children of WCC students and staff. Scheduled for completion in the mid-1990s, a 75,000square-foot Job Skills Education and Campus Events Building will include classrooms, an auditorium, exhibition space, and instructional space for art, drama, music, and speech. In addition to the facilities and classes held on the main campus, classes are offered at five regional centers throughout the district. Source: 1989-90 Catalog, pp. 4, 5. 196 Wayne County Community College 1967 Detroit, Michigan— Wayne County 1989-90 Headcount 17,788 and FYES 5,500 In 1967 the State Legislature authorized the establishment of Wayne County Community College and granted $1 million to commence operations. came from New Detroit, Inc. Another $300,000 stipend Classrooms were made available by local school boards throughout Wayne County. In 1969 the elected Board of Trustees ordered classes to begin. Wayne County Community College is not shown in the State operating data until 1970. Wayne County Community College is the last public community college to be established in Michigan. The Downtown Campus and administration building is located on West Fort in Detroit; the Eastern Campus is on Conner Avenue; the Downriver Campus is in Taylor; the Northwest Campus is on Greenfield Road; and the Western Campus is in Belleville. The college is in Michigan's most industrialized area, with about 45 percent of the State's total employment opportunities. Since the area accounts for a major share of Michigan's technical and skilled occupations, occupational/career programs are a major endeavor, in addition to traditional college and university transfer programs. Source: 1986-87 Catalog, pp. 13, 14. 197 West Shore Community College 1967 Scottville, Michigan— Mason County 1989-90 Headcount 1,855 and FYES 722 The people of the area voted to establish West Shore Community College in 1967. The college district includes the sparsely populated region including all of Mason County, most of Manistee County, and parts of Lake, Newaygo, and Oceana Counties. Because of its small population base, West Shore is among Michigan's smallest community colleges. However, it provides services to its entire district by offering programs at several locations throughout its service area. "Home base" is a 3 60-acre campus located near Scottsville in Mason County. West Shore Community College lists among its objectives educational programming related to economic and employment realities in the area served; cooperation with area business and industry; technical assistance to area business and industry; and a community center for recreation, meetings, workshops, and other activities. In-district students over 60 years of age are offered a scholarship for tuition and fees. Source: 1989-90 Catalog, pp. 3 - 5 , 17. APPENDIX B C ommunity College Coordinates Community College 1990 State Funding FYES X Y $ 3,090,394 1,445 329 230 Bay De Noc 2,561,277 1,603 158 278 Delta 9,124,620 7,054 297 131 Glen Oaks 1,312,600 788 224 15 Gogebic 2,903,775 749 7 332 Grand Rapids 12,608,479 6,987 215 86 Henry Ford 14,386,175 7,571 337 37 Highland Park 5,029,082 1,314 342 41 Jackson 8,783,500 2,970 279 34 Kalamazoo 6,032,017 4 ,849 213 38 Kellogg 5,570,050 2,886 240 41 Kirtland 2,113,575 846 275 182 Lake Michigan 3,022,625 1,728 183 24 Lansing 19,944,700 12,087 273 67 Macomb 22,107,775 14,335 357 55 Mid Michigan 2,415,100 1,351 262 157 Monroe 2,225,700 1,754 325 11 Montcalm 2,041,625 1,136 243 110 10,066,950 5,902 316 89 Muskegon 5,877,650 2,811 191 109 North Central 1,854,000 923 256 2 6U Northwestern 5,253,822 3,136 221 213 15,047,870 15,965 333 53 Schoolcraft 7,471,350 2,567 330 41 Southwestern 3,634,363 5,338 193 19 St. Clair 4,601,758 1,717 383 85 Washtenaw 6,772,975 5,300 319 42 22,224,133 5,500 342 36 1,398,825 722 182 158 Alpena Mott Oakland Wayne West Shore Data Input for All 29 Community Colleges 199 Michigan Localities Coordinates County Alcona Locality Population Alcona township Caledonia tovnshp Curtis township Greenbush townshp Gustin township Harrisville city Harrisville towns Hawes township Haynes township Mikado township Millen township Mitchell township 336 330 324 336 330 336 342 330 336 330 330 312 216 216 198 198 204 204 204 210 210 198 204 216 174 192 180 168 180 180 186 168 162 312 330 330 306 306 324 306 324 318 4 ,547 216 3 ,9/6 216 2 ,856 198 1,967 210 2 ,001 204 5 ,453 222 1,023 204 2 ,710 204 2 ,124 200 4 ,7651 ‘228 54 54 48 48 54 66 60 66 54 54 906 987 1,128 1,373 823 470 1,315 1,035 549 852 417 290 10 ,145 Alger Au Train township Burt township Grand Island town Limestone townshi Mathias township Munising city Munising township Onota township Rock River townsh 1,047 508 21 334 563 2 ,783 2 ,193 244 1,279 8 ,972 Alleean Note: Allegan city Allegan township Casco township Cheshire township Clyde township Dorr township Fennville city Fillmore township Ganges township Gunplain township Counties data input was 30 pages and is available from the researcher's files. Sample Data Input for the 83 Counties State Ccmunity College Funding by County Corrronity Colleges within 0-25 miles * Name State Funding Locality County Alcona Note: Population (d) Alcona township 906 Alpena $3,090,394 16 Caledonia townshp ss* Alpena 3,090,394 14 (d) Curtis township 1,12(1 Alpena 3,090,394 32 Greenbush townshp 1,371 Alpena 3,090,394 33 GuBtln township 821 Alpena 3,090,394 26 Harrisville city 470 Alpena 3,090,394 27 Harrisville t o m s 1,315 Alpena 3,090,394 29 Hawes township 1,035 Alpena 3,090,394 20 Haynes township 549 Alpena 3,090,394 21 Mikado township BS2 Alpena 3,090,394 32 Ml lien township 417 Alpena 3,090,394 26 Mitchell township 290 Kirtland 2,113,575 50 Alpena 3,090,394 22 10,1*15 Per Capita Value of Accessible State Funding 200 Alcona Suntnary: Naras Carisunity Colleges within 26-50 miles * * Name State Funding $310.56 .Counties d a t a outp ut w a s 280 pages and is a v a i labl e from the re se archer 's Sample Counti es D a t a O utput files. Ccrmanlty Collogo Par Capita funding Community College Mpena Localities within 75 miles Alcona township Caledonia townshp Hawes township Haynes township Hltehell township Alpena city Alpona township Cieen township long Paplds towns Maple Ridge towns Osslneke township Sanborn township Wellington townsh Wilson township Hillman township Hcnta-oroncy towns Rust township BelXnap township Bismarck township Case township Krakow township Posen township Pulavskl township Regers township (continued on next page) Population 906 987 1,035 549 290 11,354 9,602 1,095 1,021 1,514 1,652 2,196 269 1,902 2,169 1,075 514 920 319 770 617 972 427 857 (d) 16 16 20 21 2> 0 3 11 i 4 B 7 14 4 71 12 12 :i2 :>i 26 n 12 17 25 Localities between 26 and 50 miles Curtis township Greanbush townshp Custln township Harrisville city Harrisville towns Hlkado township Hlllen township Clayton township Mason township Turner township Forest township Waverly township Lovells township Oscoda township Plainfield townsh Wilber township Albert township Avery township Briley township Loud township Vienna township Clinton township Ceralns township Elmer township Greenwood townshl Mentor township Charlton township Allis township Bearlnger townshl Metz township Moltke township Horth Allis towns Ooqueoc township Oneway city Total Population 1,128 1,173 823 470 1,315 852 417 908 865 628 929 371 420 11,958 3,490 638 2,097 579 1,831 220 431 447 1,785 854 880 1,098 911 887 246 401 309 502 521 1,039 (d> 32 33 26 27 29 32 26 50 50 50 47 50 44 45 48 51 32 27 31 27 36 39 42 45 SO 51 49 35 40 31 29 37 32 40 P o p u la tio n FYES FYES aa % of Pop State Funding Par Capita Valua of Accessible 5tata funding Ccmainity College Per Capita Funding Localities within 25 miles Population (d) Localities between 26 and 50 miles Presque Isle town Rogers City city Alpena continued 43,032 Population 1,312 3,642 (d) Total Population FYES. FYES as % of Fop State Funding Per Capita Value of Accessible State Funding 1.6t $3,090,394.00 $34.49 26 27 46,S91 89,613 1,445 202 Note: C o m m u n i t y C o l l e g e s d a t a output w a s 80 pages and is a v a i lab le f r o m the r e s e a r c h e r ' s files. S ampl e C o m m u n i t y C o l l eges D a t a O u t p u t APPENDIX C 203 DISTANCE.EXE Documentation By Jeff Chaney 204 Contents Introduction ........................................... 1 The Screen and K e y s ..................................... 2 The M e n u s ............................................... 3 Creating/Printing 4 Reports ............................. Introduction This program was written to perform three functions. 1) 2) 3) To calculate thedistance between locales in Michigan and each community college. The distance is then used to separate the community colleges into three ranges: within 25 miles, greater than 25 but within 50 miles and greater than 50 miles. The Per Capita Value of Accessible State Funding is calculated by summing the state funding for the schools in the first two ranges and then dividing by the population of the locale. The first step is accomplished using a cartesian (x,y) coordinate system. Every locale and school is given an x,y coordinate. The pythagorean theorem is then used to calculate the distance between the locale and a school. d = sl(y2 - y n)2 + (x2 - x 2) The distance in x,y units is then multiplied by a units to miles conversion ratio. The state funding for the schools within 50 miles is totalled. This total is then used in the final step along with the population of the locale to calculate the Per Capita Value of Accessible State Funding available to the the people of a locale. DISTANCE.DOC Page: 1 205 The Screen and Keys The screen is divided into two main areas. The locales are listed in the top half and the schools in the bottom. On the very top line of the screen is the Main Menu. The bottom line is used as a status bar giving information about the system in general. ,A ) J } | J j j > ; | 2.129 0.254 0/000 2.129 1.554 0.000 0.000 2.606 V > > > > > Y 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ' Name Order The status line shows which file is current, the coordinate increment status for adding records, the deletion status of the current record and the current ordering of the file. The following keys can be used information in the data files: Kev / / / DISTANCE.DOC to navigate through the Aoti on Advance/Retreat one record. Advance/Retreat a screen-full of records. Pan right/left to see more information. Available in Locale file only. Advance to bottom of file. Retreat to top of file. Pan to far right of Locale record. Pan to far left of Locale record. Page: 2 206 The Menus The main option. menu has eight displayed and one non-displayed ADD - Allows you to add a record to the current file. Add can be chosen by pressing "A" or . NOTE: When adding a record in the Locales database the calculated fields are not displayed. EDIT - Allows you record. Edit . to change the currently selected can be chosen by pressing "E" or NOTE: When editing a record in the Locales database you are not allowed to change the calculated fields. DELETE - Marks the current record to be deleted at a later time. This option is a toggle and is used to un-mark record previous fated to be deleted. Delete is invoked by pressing "D" or . See also "Optimize Files" in Utilities Submenu. ZOOM - Increases the size of the window displaying the current file to full screen. Note this option only displays one of the files at a time. Zoom works as a toggle and is chosen a second time to return the windows back to their original size. Zoom is chosen by pressing "Z". SWITCH - Changes the current file between the Locales and the Schools. The "S" or keys will perform the Switch. CALCULATE - Runs through the Locales and calculating the distances, total funding, capita funding for each Locale. NOTE: Schools and per Any information previously found using the Calculate will be lost. REPORT - Enters the Reporting System. In the Reports Menus you can create your own report formats or use existing dBase FRM reports. Pressing "R" chooses the Reporting System. This option is discussed in more detail below. NOTE: DISTANCE.DOC The final reports were printed external reporting program. using an Page: 3 207 UTILITIES - From the Utilities Submenu you have five options to choose from: Optimize Files removes all records marked to be deleted. Re-Index Files recreates the control indexes on the Locale and School databases. This option should be used if unexplained things start happening. Increment X/Y changes which coordinate is incremented by one for each new addition in the data files. This option is a toggle. Miles to Units ratio accepts a decimal number representing the ratio between a Mile and an X,Y Unit. QUIT - Exits from the DISTANCE program. pressing "Q" or . You can Quit by Creating/Printing Reports The Reporting System was created to allow flexibility in printing the information contained in the data files. It has two main functions: Creating and Printing information. NOTE: To keep the Reporting System from getting overly complicated it was limited to reporting on only the Locale file, since this is where the calculated information is stored. Creating A Report To create a report you first create pages by choosing the fields to go into each column. The pages are then selected to make up the information to be printed on the report. You can also enter a Title and Sub-Title, choose a specific order and put a condition on the records that will be printed. Choosing "Create a Report" from the Report Submenu displays a menu for you to choose the database to report from. There is only one choice "Locales". Press and a screen listing page definitions already created is displayed. You can choose one of these pages, create a new page or create a temporary page that will not be saved. After you choose a page you will be asked if you want to add another page. Answering "Yes" returns you to the list of available pages. "No" continues to the next step in creating a report. DISTANCE.DOC Page: 4 208 You have six different choices of ordering: Name Order Position Order Total Funding Order Per Capita Order After choosing an order the Title and Sub-title can entered. These will be printed at the top of each page. be Creating a condition is next. If you choose to create a condition you will be given the choice of pre-created conditional statements or creating your own. This is much like choosing pages from the page definition screen. After the condition you can choose to print Page Numbers or not. Finally you are asked to name the Report. You have eight characters available and it must be different from any other report you have created. An extension of ".USR" is added to what you enter. Printing a Report After choosing a report to be printed, you are given a chance to add a condition onto the records that will be printed, and the destination of the output. You have three choices to send the information to: the Printer on LPT1:, the Screen, and a File. A list of available reports are displayed after choosing the "Print Report" option from the Report Menu. Choose the report you would like to print. You are then asked to choose a condition. This is done in the same way as described above in the Create Report Section. Finally you are asked to choose an output device. If you choose to print to a File you will be prompted for the name of the file. A default of OUTPUT.FIL is provided. DISTANCE.DOC Page: 5 209 Registering a Form. If the Reporting System's built in report creation does not provide enough flexibility you can use dBase or a dBase clone to create an "FRM" file. This "FRM" file can then be "Registered" with the Reporting System. Choose "Register whether you want choose "Report" a Choose the dBase the report. a Form" from the Report Submenu. Choose to register a Report or a Label. If you list of available "FRM" files is displayed. III+ Report form to be used as a basis for The data file is next to be chosen. A list of available data files is displayed. Only "Locales" is available so just press . Next you must choose or enter the Ordering, Heading, Condition, Page Number and the Name of the report. The report is saved with an extension of ".REP" and will appear in the list of reports the next time "Print Report" is chosen. R&R Reports If you still feel too restricted by the Reporting System you can use the R&R Report Generator (available commercially through stores and mail order) to create a report library for the Locale file. If this library is in the same directory as the DISTANCE program, "DISTANCE.EXE", the reports in the library will be automatically included in Reports List when "Print Report" is chosen. NOTE: At this point only version 3 and 4 of the R&R Relational Report Writer are known to work. Other versions may work but nave not been tested. DISTANCE.DOC Page: 6 LIST OF REFERENCES 210 LIST OF REFERENCES Breneraan, D. W . , and Nelson, S. C. (1981). Financing community colleges: An economic perspective. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institute. Cohen, A. M . , & Brawer, F. B. (1989). The American community college. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Deegan, W. I., & Tillery, D., and Assoc. (1985). Renewing the American community college. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Diener, T. York: (1986). Growth of an American invention. Greenwood Press. New Dunbar, W. F. (1963). The Michigan record in higher education. Detroit: Wayne State University Press. Eells, W. C. (1931). Mifflin. The junior college. Boston: Houghton Gannon, P. J. (1969). Fifty years of community involvement in Michigan. Junior colleges: 50 states/50 years. Washington, DC: American Association of Junior Colleges. Garms, w. i. (1977). Financing community colleges. York: Teachers College Press. New Glenny, L. A. (1976). State budgeting for higher education: Interagency conflict and consensus. Berkeley, CA: Center for Research and Development. Governor's Commission on the Future of Higher Education in Michigan. (1984). Putting our minds together: New directions for Michigan higher education. Headley, L. (1990). Community colleges at the crossroads. Lansing, MI: Public Sector Consultants, Inc. Karabel, J. (1984). Community colleges and social stratification in the 1980's. The community college and its critics (p. 13). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 211 Kemp, W. W. (1930). The junior college in California. California Quarterly of Secondary Education. 5, 188194. Martorana, S. V. (1978). Shifting patterns of financial support. The American community college (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. McLean, J. A., Jr., & Porter, J. W. community college services. (1979). Statewide Medsker, L. L. & Tillery, D. (1971). Breaking the access barriers: A profile of two-vear colleges. New York: McGraw Hill. Michigan Community College Association. (1971). Statewide community college services in Michigan: A lifetime of educational opportunity (Special Report with Recommendations). Lansing, MI: Author. Michigan Department of Education. (1970). State plan for higher education in Michigan (Completed in 1969). Lansing, MI: Author. -------- . (1990). Community college districts in Michigan (State Board of Education in cooperation with Michigan Community Colleges Association). Michigan State Board of Education. (1990). Activity classification structure (ACS) Michigan community colleges 1989-90 data book. Lansing, MI: Author. -------- . (1989). Activity classification structure (ACS) Michigan community colleges 1988-89 data book. T.anc? •»r»rr MT • An+"V»r>r* -------- . (1988). Activity classification structure (ACS) Michigan community colleges 1987-88 data book. Lansing, MI: Author. -------- . (1987). Activity classification structure (ACS) Michigan community colleges 1986-87 data book. Lansing, MI: Author. -------- . (1986). Activity classification structure (ACS) Michigan community colleges 1985-86 data book. Lansing, MI: Author. -------- . (1985). Activity classification structure (ACS) Michigan community colleges 1984-85 data book. Lansing, MI: Author. 212 -------- . (1984). Activity classification structure (ACS) Michigan community colleges 1983-84 data book. Lansing, MI: Author. Monroe, C. R. (1972). Profile of the community college. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Palinchak, R. S. (1973). The evolution of the community college. Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press. Root, R. L . , et al. (1990). Report on community college geographic access in Michigan. Russell, J. D. (1957). The community college in Michigan: Staff study No. 1 the survey of higher education in Michigan. -------- . (1958). Higher education in Michigan: The final report of the survey of higher education in Michigan. Sederburg, W. A., Senator. (1985). Draft of Part 1 of the Senate Select Committee on higher education's recommendations regarding the Governor's Commission on the Future of Higher Education in Michigan. Strayer, G. D. (1948). Survey of the needs of California in higher education. Renewing the American community college. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Tillery, D. (1970). Changes in the community college organizations. Renewing the American community college. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. United States Department of Commerce. (1970). Characteristics of the population: Michigan 1970 census of the population. Washington DC: Author. -------- . (1990). Characteristics of the population: Michigan 1990 census of the population. Washington, D C : Author. Wattenbarger, J. L . , & Mercer, S. L. (1988). Financing community colleges. Washington, DC: American Association of Community and Junior Colleges. Wilms, W. W . , & Hansell, S. (1980). The unfulfilled promise of postsecondarv vocational education: Graduates and dropouts in the labor market. Unpublished paper. Zwerling, L. S. (1986). The community college and its critics. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 213 Documents and Correspondence June 1, 1989 Memo Report To: Occupation Education Contact Persons From: James H. Folkening "Information on Community College Grant Allocations to the 1989-90 Michigan State Plan for Education" March 20, 1990 To: State Board of Education From: Donald L. Bemis, Supt. Public Instruction "Information on the Report on the Federal and State Funds Awarded to Post-Secondary Education through the State Board of Education in 1988-89" May, 1985 To: Interested Parties From: Senator William A. Sederburg "Draft of Part 1 of the Senate Select Committee on Higher Education's Recommendations Regarding the Governor's Commission on the Future of Higher Education" March, 1989 List of Community Colleges Districts as Established by Each Community College Computer printout Received from Jerry Forrest, Community College Services Unit May 1989 Copy of a letter sent to Community College Presidents by individual names by Ronald Root regarding the community college access, quality articulation, recruitment and retention, governance, and finance study being undertaken by Community Colleges Service Unit, Sandra Ritter and James June 1, 1990 To: Community College Geographic Access Committee Members From: Ron Root "June 8, 1990 Geographic Access Committee Meeting and Draft" 214 Legislation West Publishing Company. (1985). Michigan Compiled Laws Annotated. Constitution of Michigan, Articles 6 to End. S t . Paul, MN: Au Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Acts Acts Acts Acts Acts Acts Acts Acts Acts Acts of of of of of of of of of of 1917, 1923, 1929, 1929, 1951, 1955, 1956, 1956, 1966, 1978, No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. NO. 146 138 230 295 189 269 156 226 331 419 Michigan Constitution 1963, Article 8, Section 7 215 Persons Consulted in Person and by Telephone Michigan Department of Education— Community College Services Unit James H. Folkening, Supervisor Sandra Ritter Diane Smolen Jerry Forrest Barbara Argumedo Flora Jenkins Michigan Department of Management and Budget Karen Pawlovich Robert Endriff Michigan Association of Community Colleges Thomas Bernthal 216 General References Commission on the Future of Community Colleges. (1988). Building communities: A vision for a new century (Report). Washington, DC: American Association of Community and Junior Colleges. Praeger Special Studies in U.S. Economic and Social Development. (1971). State community college systems: Their role and operation in seven states. New York: Author. Smith, M.S. (1959). Planning community colleges. MI: Michigan State University. Lansing, State Board of Public Community and Junior Colleges. (1968). A recommended community college districting plan. Lansing, MI: Michigan Department of Education. -------- . (1977). Report of the task force to implement Senate Bill 1346. Lansing, MI: Michigan Department of Education. Vaughan, G. B. (1982). The community college in America: A pocket history. Washington, DC: American Association of Community and Junior Colleges. Research Methodology References and Statistical References United States Government Printing o f f i c e . I I . S . Census Bureau. (1991). United States census. 1990. Population of county subdivisions. Washington, DC: Author. -------- . (1971). United States census. 1970. Population of county subdivisions. Washington, DC: Author. -------- . (1991). Council of Economic Advisers, economic report of the president. Washington, DC: Author. Van Matre, & Gilbreath. (1983). Statistics for business and economics. Plano, TX: Business Publications, Inc.