2008 Access at Risk Report

Raise the Bar, Close the Gap, Slam the Door:
Access to Higher Education at Risk
Prepared by
Professor Miller Newman, Administrative Associate to the President
Department of English, Composition, Literature, and Professional Writing
Montgomery College
Ms. Michelle T. Scott, Director
Office of Equity and Diversity
Montgomery College
Professor Nathan Starr
Department of Sociology, Anthropology, and Criminal Justice
Montgomery College
Dr. Robert Walker, Faculty
Center for Community Leadership Development
and Public Policy at Montgomery College

CHANGING LIVES
We are in the business of changing lives.
Students are the center of our universe.
We encourage continuous learning for
our students, our faculty, our staff, and our community.
ENRICHING OUR COMMUNITY
We are the community’s college.
We are the place for intellectual, cultural, social, and political dialogue.
We serve a global community.
HOLDING OURSELVES ACCOUNTABLE
We are accountable for key results centered around learning.
We will be known for academic excellence by every
high school student and community member.
We inspire intellectual development through
a commitment to the arts and sciences.
We lead in meeting economic and workforce development needs.
WE WILL TEND TO OUR INTERNAL SPIRIT.
OUR COLLEGE
OUR MISSION
Adopted by the Montgomery College Boar

OUR INTERNAL SPIRIT
We are committed to high academic and performance
standards and take pride in our collective achievements.
We are welcoming, compassionate,
and service-oriented to our diverse communities.
We operate in a creative, innovative, flexible,
and responsive manner.
We practice collaboration, openness, honesty,
and widely shared communications.
Integrity, trust, and respect guide our actions.
We value and respect academic vitality and excellence.
Our spirit is renewed through enthusiasm, celebration,
a sense of humor, and fun.
OUR COLLEGE
OUR SPIRIT
ry College Board of Trustees • July 17, 2000

Montgomery College
Board ofTrustees
(As ofApril 1, 2006)
SylviaW. Crowder, Ph.D.
Chair
Roberta F. Shulman
FirstVice Chair
Michael C. Lin, Ph.D.
SecondVice Chair
GeneW. Counihan
Mary E. Cothran, Ph.D.
Jong-On Hahm, Ph.D.
Stephen Z. Kaufman
Owen D. Nichols, Ed.D.
Robert E. Shoenberg, Ph.D.
Kanika M. Hughley, Student Member
Charlene R. Nunley, Ph.D.
Secretary-Treasurer and
Montgomery College President

Table of Contents
Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Background and Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Summary, Implications,
and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Key Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Final Thoughts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Appendices
Appendix 1: Methodology and Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Appendix 2: Discussion of Dialogue Process and Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Appendix 3: Institutional Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Appendix 4: Montgomery College Dialogue Moderators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Appendix 5: Roster of Dialogue Participant Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Appendix 6: Dialogue Issue Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Executive Summary
Montgomery College is among the many institutions of higher education
challenged to address its capacity to meet the increasing enrollment demands,
find space, and provide resources for its current students. In response to this
challenge, Charlene R. Nunley, Ph.D., President of Montgomery College, issued a call to
action which includes fostering a national dialogue. In her call to action she said, “I know
that one community college may not be able to force a national dialogue on this, but we
can accomplish great things here in Montgomery County. Five years ago, I asked many of
you to join me in shaping the future of the College. Today, I ask that we come together
as a community to talk about this challenge of access at risk. My hope is that together,
we can make a difference. I ask the College community—our faculty, staff, alumni,
foundation, and friends—to think of creative ways to address this problem of access.
I ask parents, the PTAs, education advocacy groups, the community and civic groups,
and all who aren’t afraid to raise their voices for children, for education, not to forget
Montgomery College—and our students.” That was 18 months ago.
Soon after the President’s State of the College Address, a core team from her office met to
determine how the College could best work with its community to address what could
very well be a perfect storm in higher education: the convergence of access, capacity and
affordability. The data show that this nationwide problem has a very familiar local face. In
Spring 2004, more than 700 students who wanted to register for a class at Montgomery
College were unable to register for the class(es) that they wanted. The year before, 1200
students who were unable to secure financial aid never enrolled. The team called on
its Institute for Public Policy faculty to help train more than thirty volunteers from the
College’s faculty and staff to serve as moderators and recorders for a series of deliberative
dialogue forums on Access at Risk, No Child Left Behind…Until College. These moderators
actively worked with the College’s diverse communities to hear what they had to say
about the very real issues that Montgomery College (specifically) and higher education
(generally) are facing. Appendix 4: Roster of Montgomery College Dialogue Moderators identifies
this cadre of moderators. The College conducted 16 deliberative forums, which allowed
it to dialogue with more than 500 members of its internal and external communities.
The dialogue forum participants were representative of the socioeconomic, racial,
and cultural diversity of Montgomery College’s students, faculty, staff and external
communities. As a result of the deliberative dialogues, the College now has information
that it can consider in its strategic planning process. As participants engaged each of the
currently considered policy approaches, four topical themes emerged: affordability,
government, social order and College mission. Because facilitated deliberative dialogues
support open and frank discussion that allow participants to clarify confusing terms or

concepts, such as the meaning of “fully funding” higher education, the opportunity to
conceptualize and redefine terms that had a multiplicity of definitions for participants
often yielded consensus across groups on the nuances of an issue, as well as on the
obvious issues. The capacity challenge was defined and synthesized within the context
of three public policy implications that are articulated in the Ability of Higher Education to
Meet Enrollment Growth and Workforce Demands report prepared by the University System
of Maryland, the Maryland Association of Community Colleges, and Maryland Higher
Education Commission. These mutually exclusive public policy implications are identified
in the deliberative dialogue forums for the public and for higher education policy makers
as they consider:
Approach 1: Access to higher education is a public good and suggests fully funding higher
education to meet the needs of the students, families, businesses and the
workforce.
Approach 2: Access to higher education is a private good and suggests reducing funding to
higher education and letting students, their families and businesses pick up
the costs.
Approach 3: Access to higher education is neither an issue of a public or private good;
rather it must accommodate the changing demands for higher education
with a variety of approaches for students, their families, and businesses.
Of these three approaches, Approach 2 was perceived by forum participants as the most
unacceptable.
As a result of its deliberative dialogue forums, the College now better
understands that the community is very concerned about continued access
to higher education and that the community recognizes it as a complex
issue that defies a “one-size-fits-all solution.”
While distance learning is certainly an attractive option and a potential way to address
physical space limitations, it may not be an attractive option to many traditional and
nontraditional students who choose Montgomery College as their higher education
preference. The College must, therefore, explore scheduling options that include
weekend and off-hours course offerings as part of its strategic plan. The College has
been told that the community believes that “higher education is a privilege not a right”
and that it is a privilege for everyone, “not just the privileged.” And so, the College
must consider the impact of tuition increases and limited financial aid options that
may restrict or prolong attendance as it plans for increases in enrollment in credit and

noncredit classes. The participants say that Montgomery College’s comprehensive
mission to provide academic and workforce development courses, as well as respond to
the educational needs of smaller and often marginalized groups of community members,
is the right mission for this community. Montgomery College, the participants say, must
remain affordable and accessible to all members of the community whether they are,
documented, or undocumented citizens–because a better educated population is essential
to a democracy. Undocumented participants say that they are concerned about the
political agenda that excludes them from the decision making process even though they
pay taxes like everyone else. They say that they fear that they will be unable to access the
entitlements of living in a democratic society, because so many laws are being introduced
that target them through sanctions that will close the doors of higher education to all
those who cannot afford to pay College tuition rates. As such, the College must make
some critical decisions as it continues to plan for the students who have historically found
Montgomery College accessible. If our community finds that Montgomery College
is no longer an affordable option for higher education, then there may be long-term
implications for the economic, social and educational health and well-being of our entire
community.
Raise the Bar, Close the Gap, Slam the Door: Access to Higher Education at Risk...discusses
Montgomery College’s experience convening a series of deliberative dialogue forums.
The forums were convened to examine how a purposefully and self-selected group
of Montgomery College and Montgomery County community members are thinking
and talking about access, affordability, and the capacity of higher education to meet its
increasing enrollment demands. This report discusses implications for how Montgomery
College might better align its strategic plan and its outreach to be more inclusive of
community thinking.
Introduction
In the spring of 2003, Charlene R. Nunley, Ph.D., President of Montgomery
College, co-chaired (with a University System of Maryland President) a public higher
education task force. The task force, formed at the request of the Maryland General
Assembly, was asked to report on relationships among higher education growth, access,
affordability, and capacity. The task force was also asked to make recommendations on
meeting enrollment growth and maintaining access to quality higher education.
The report found that Maryland faces challenges of both affordability and capacity–at
a time of unprecedented demand for higher education. The report also predicts that
statewide demand for higher education will grow by 31 percent by 2010.1

While the challenges of affordability and capacity for higher education to meet its
enrollment demand might seem to be a local Maryland issue, it is in fact an emerging
national higher education public policy matter. The National Center for Public Policy in
Higher Education estimated that “in fall 2003, at least 250,000 prospective students were
shut out of higher education due to rising tuition or cutbacks in admissions and course
offerings.” 2
A Chronicle of Higher Education article reported, “[W]e face a looming crisis in
college access in this country” which can be attributed to “unprecedented convergence
of events including the floundering economy, cuts in higher-education spending by
cash-strapped states, and a rising demand for college education spurred by demographic
changes.” 3
Some states have already begun to report the impact of these access issues. For
example, the 2003-04 budget reductions “forced California’s 108 community colleges
to cut back on their offerings,” and that includes institutions eliminating “about 8,200
courses, which officials estimated led to a loss of about 90,000 students who would
otherwise have enrolled.” 4
Also, “approximately 35,000 students hoping to enroll in
Florida’s community colleges were shut out because the schools could not afford to offer
them the classes they need.” 5
President Nunley, one of the first responders to the access crisis as a local higher
education public policy issue, initiated an information campaign to inform the public
about the higher education access crisis. Her early efforts included an “op-ed” piece in
Community College Times and a commentary in The Gazette, a leading local community
newspaper. However, she and the Montgomery College Board of Trustees felt compelled
to further sound the alarm about the concern that “access to higher education is at risk.”
Reeling from a third consecutive year of state funding reductions, President Nunley
took a major step to raise the public conscience with a State of the College Address that she
delivered on March 4, 2004. This address was aimed to showcase Montgomery College’s
profound impact on its students and the community, as well as the major challenges the
College, like all public higher education institutions, will be facing in the years ahead.
The dual themes of the speech—that community colleges change lives, but that access
to an affordable quality higher education is at risk —struck a cord with many of the 400
guests in attendance, but it also resonated with others in the media and higher education
communities.
Subsequent to the State of the College Address, Montgomery College developed multiple
and concurrent strategies, both internal and external to the College, to respond to the
access crisis. Internally, the College assessed what it could do to address its own capacity
issues. In the spring of 2004, “as many as 700 students were shut out of Montgomery
College because they could not get any of the classes they needed. And even worse, last
year more than 1,300 students did not enroll at Montgomery College after learning there

10
was no grant or scholarship money for them.” 6
To accommodate increasing demand
for higher education, the College has taken steps to better utilize its facilities, schedule
differently, streamline intake processes (to make them less cumbersome), and evaluate
the faculty hiring process. A subcommittee of the Cabinet was charged with oversight
and further examination of ways to enhance the College’s ability to proactively respond.
The College is working within its existing resources, in addition to seeking new funding.
The following steps have been taken or are being considered to address the College’s
immediate capacity issues:
• Expanding afternoon offerings in spring 2005 resulted in an 11percent increase
in afternoon class enrollments.
• Utilizing distance education as a tool in meeting new demand, the College
offered 375 sections of distance learning classes in FY 2005, topping 7,000
enrollments – and a 25 percent enrollment growth above last year. More than
250 faculty have received training for on-line delivery of courses and for course
offerings that include blended sections, as well as those that are strictly on-line.
• A Weekend College model at the Germantown Campus, targeting the adult
student market which will begin offerings in fall 2006.
Externally there was substantial media coverage, including articles in The Washington Post
and The Gazette, followed by an article in the Wall Street Journal. President Nunley was
invited to participate in a television interview with former U.S. Secretary of Education,
Ron Paige, for the U.S. Department of Education’s monthly television series, and she
served as a point person on capacity issues for a blue ribbon task force appointed by the
Governor of Maryland to prepare the Maryland State Plan for Higher Education. The guiding
principle for the Plan: All Maryland residents who can benefit from postsecondary
education and desire to attend a College… should have a place in postsecondary
education, and it should be affordable.
The College also developed and published an issue summary (in the form of a placemat)
and a seven minute videotaped message from President Nunley which summarizes the
capacity and access issues and public policy implications articulated in the Ability of
Higher Education to Meet Enrollment Growth and Workforce Demands report prepared by the
University System of Maryland, the Maryland Association of Community Colleges, and
Maryland Higher Education Commission. The College used the issue summary placemat
and videotaped message, with its diverse constituent communities, as the guide for the
dialogue. The issue summary placemat, titled Access to Higher Education at Risk: No Child
Left Behind… Until College (Appendix 6), identifies three approaches implicated by the

11
Ability of Higher Education to Meet Enrollment Growth and Workforce Demands report. The
three approaches to address the capacity and access crisis articulate that:
Approach 1: Access to higher education is a public good and suggests fully funding higher
workforce.
Approach 2: Access to higher education is a private good and suggests reducing funding to
higher education and letting students, their families and businesses pick up
the costs.
Approach 3: Access to higher education is neither an issue of a public or private good;
rather it must accommodate the changing demands for higher education with
a variety of approaches for students, their families, and businesses.
An examination and discussion of how a purposefully and self-selected group of
Montgomery College and Montgomery County community members are thinking
and talking about access, affordability, and the capacity of higher education to meet its
increasing enrollment demands are the focus of this report. This report also discusses key
findings, implications, and recommendations on how Montgomery College might better
align its strategic plan and its outreach to be more inclusive of the community’s thinking.
Background and Purpose
While the Ability of Higher Education to Meet Enrollment Growth and Workforce
Demands report articulates Maryland’s higher education leaders’ perspectives
on higher education’s growth, access, affordability, and capacity to meet
enrollment growth, it does not include the public’s perspectives, interests, and will for
maintaining access to quality higher education. According to Dr. Nunley, “The growth
is predominately among economically challenged and ethnically diverse students, many
of whom will be the first in their families to attend College.” 7
Montgomery College is
a multi ethnic institution serving a diverse native and non-native United States student
population, representing more than 170 nations. The diversity of the College reflects the
rapidly growing diversity of Montgomery County, Maryland, and the Washington, D.C.
metropolitan region. As such, it was especially important for the College to hear the
perspectives of its community members about this issue, particularly those members who
are economically challenged and ethnically diverse. Appendix 3: Institutional Characteristics
provides a profile of Montgomery College.

12
During an 18 month period following the State of the College Address, the College convened
dialogues with more than 200 representatives from its internal stakeholders, including
the Montgomery College Board of Trustees, the President’s Cabinet members, Academic
Assembly and other faculty, Staff Senate, members of the bargaining and non-bargaining
staff, members of the faculty councils, and students. More than 300 members from the
College’s external stakeholder communities also participated, including members of
the African American, Asian (Chinese, Indian, Korean and Vietnamese), White, and
Hispanic/Latino communities. Appendix 5: Roster of Dialogue Participant Groups identifies
the internal and external dialogue participant groups.
As a strategy, President Nunley and the Montgomery College Board of Trustees had
multiple purposes for supporting the College’s deliberative dialogues with an array of
its constituents, which included hearing and understanding their perspectives on the
capacity crisis and helping the College with its thinking as it formulates further plans
and policies for addressing the issue. The Trustees and the President charged several
staff with developing a strategy that “recognizes that successful citizen participation
depends on the appropriate crafting of citizen participation strategies.” 8
The deliberative
dialogue strategy, proposed by the College staff to the Trustees and the President is
an engagement practice used by its Center for Community Leadership Development
and Public Policy. Deliberative dialogue as a methodology and process are discussed
in Appendix 1: Methodology and Procedure of this report. It is discussed as a qualitative
research design most appropriate to hear and understand the communities’ perspectives
on the capacity crisis and assist the College to record its thinking as it formulates further
plans and policies for addressing the issue. Appendix 2: Discussion of Dialogue Process and
Limitations provides an overview of dialogue as a discursive process, and it identifies the
College’s dialogue methodology limitations. Through the deliberative dialogue forums,
the Montgomery College and Montgomery County community members’ perspectives
and interests contribute to the College’s understanding of the public’s will that the
College maintain access to affordable and quality higher education.
It also contributes to the College’s understanding that higher education is
viewed as a public good.

13
Summary, Implications, and Recommendations
The community college is uniquely positioned within the community, and through
its Board of Trustees and CEO, has virtually endless possibilities to develop
strategies to serve culturally diverse communities that go beyond the everyday.
These strategies require expanding beyond the most commonly used and conventional
practices of relating to the public, and establishing practices for relating with the public.
The CEO and Trustees have significant roles in influencing the organizational culture and
“determining the style and importance of civic engagement and social engagement.” 9
This
includes establishing engagement as an organizational priority, developing organizational
capacities, identifying the most effective practical approaches, and committing the staff,
resources, and time to achieve its engagement agenda.
Montgomery College is learning that its a priori assumptions about its most commonly
used practices of relating to the public are not the most favored by its communities.
Dispelling this assumption, more than 500 members of the College’s internal and
external communities have participated in dialogues on the issue of Access to Higher
Education at Risk: No Child Left Behind… Until College. Through the deliberative dialogue
process, the College is learning and gaining several critical perspectives from the
community about the access to higher education issue. The College is also learning more
about how to effectively engage in dialogue with its communities.
Dialogues on Access to Higher Education at Risk: No Child Left Behind …Until
College
During the dialogue forums, the participants, who represented a cross section of racial,
socioeconomic, and educational status at the College and within Montgomery County,
shared that higher education serves a public good and that it adds intrinsic and extrinsic
value to the life of the community. To assure this public good, the participants were
insistent that there must be accessible and affordable higher education. As such, these
dialogues have enhanced the College leadership’s understanding of the value that its
public places on and their support for continued access to higher education, and the
implications for pursuing more public and private sources of funding. As participants
engaged each of the currently considered public policy approaches, four topical themes
emerged as the communities’ primary concerns about the capacity challenge and
access crisis to higher education issues–affordability, government, social order, and college
mission. These topical themes seem to suggest that there are several appropriate internal
and external Collegewide strategies that should be considered. Some of the general
recommendations the College might wish to consider in responding to the concerns of
the dialogue participants are identified by category.

14
1. Affordability: The dialogue participants acknowledge that there is a public
need for and benefit to higher education and they are willing to make reasonable
personal sacrifices, financial commitments, and investments in assuring its
accessibility. However, the notions of incurring more debt, lacking financial aid
options and extending the time it takes to complete a degree are not acceptable
options. The community perceives that these options are incongruent with the
communities’ perceptions of appropriate public and higher education policy
for affordable and accessible higher education. The recommendation is that the
College continues to consider and establish policies that do not have an adverse
financial impact on the communities’ interest and value for assuring accessible and
affordable higher education.
2. Government: Dialogue participants expressed concern about the
government’s failure to establish budget priorities that reflect their personal stakes
in having access to affordable higher education. They determined that higher
education is essential to the democratic process and that some elected officials,
in many cases, have misrepresented their will. The recommendation is that the
College continues to proactively create and cultivate opportunities with a broader
stakeholder community. This includes cultivating community-and campus-based
advocacy education and advocacy development strategies. The advocacy strategies
should be representative of the communities’ interests, values and preferences
for state and federal higher education policy that assures affordable and accessible
higher education.
3. Social Order: The health of the community is directly related to providing
opportunities for its residents (regardless of their ethnicity and socioeconomic
status) to participate in meaningful ways in decision making processes that impact
the quality of their lives, including identifying and allocating resources that
support the community’s values and preferences for assuring access to education
at all levels. There are untapped opportunities for Montgomery College to
cultivate and sustain relationships with the dialogue participants and develop a
broader community participation in its higher education advocacy strategies. It is
recommended that the College develop strategies for enhancing its advocacy with
the broader communities of Montgomery College and Montgomery County.
4. College Mission: While the community has expressed an interest in
preserving the comprehensive community college mission, it also supports and
values a mission that meets specific workforce development needs. A fundamental
challenge and commensurate recommendation is that community colleges,

15
including Montgomery College, revisit the feasibility of implementing their
comprehensive mission and identify strategies to achieve an appropriate balance
to provide specialized services as well as meet the needs of a broader student body.
Dialogue Practice
Through its deliberative dialogue practices, some of what the College is also learning has
been categorized into three topical themes–understanding the community and the community’s
voice, understanding the role of administrative leadership and organizational structures, and
continuing to connect with the community through dialogue.
Table 1: What Montgomery College is Learning from its Deliberative Dialogues on the Capacity
Challenge and Deliberative Dialogue Practice, identifies by category some of the emerging
topical themes about the capacity challenge and access to higher education issue from the
community. Table 1 also identifies some organizational implications on how the College
can continue relating with its communities. Each of the theme categories suggests actions
for the College to consider when developing its strategic and tactical plans.
In conclusion, the Montgomery College President and Board of Trustees have
demonstrated their commitment to implementing a public and social engagement
practice with a broader based community. Their collective commitment is a prerequisite
to implementing and sustaining a viable and authentic engagement practice – a practice
that moves beyond a public relations strategy. The President and Trustees are uniquely
positioned to influence the College’s engagement culture, pedagogy, and practices. Some
general observations about the capacity of the College to implement this commitment
and foster a sustained engagement practice suggest establishing assessment tools and
strategies, including identifying staff to “both improve the content and enhance the long-
term sustainability of engagement efforts.” 10

17
Key Findings
I.GENERAL PERCEPTIONS OF ACCESS TO HIGHER EDUCATION AT RISK
Sources of Information
All 16 dialogue groups expressed their concern at the possibility that access to higher
education is indeed at risk. The potential long-term effects of the capacity challenge on
the community’s diversity, its ability to provide an educated workforce, and its ability
to sustain its social stability—without providing continued access to affordable higher
education—is detrimental to the individual and to the state. Immigrant backlash is a
great concern to many of the dialogue participants, and they fear that an anti-immigrant
political agenda threatens their ability to survive in the state. Among the concerns that
dialogue participants offered are:
Attending college is an important family value in our culture. It benefits immigrants
economically, and it ensures the future advancement of our culture.
As a citizen and community member, I think it is important to have an educated population.
Higher education helps prepare people for the real world by connecting theories to practical
life.
My grandsons have something to contribute to society, but they need
access to higher education to nurture their talents.
Unfortunately, anti-immigrant and anti-undocumented immigrant feelings are growing all
over the County, and it is hard for us to make people understand that we pay taxes too and
want to be able to have the opportunities that this country provides.
Higher education gives first time college goers a better life. My son wants to be a doctor, but we
don’t have legal residency. This concerns us. What can we do?
Some of the dialogue participants voiced their concerns that if the community does not
support access to higher education for all who seek it, the long-term consequence is a
higher unemployment rate.
We must support higher education because the disenfranchised don’t have access to jobs. The
poor working class is being displaced and many of the current population will not be able to
attend college. But higher education is a human right. It is important that we get people to
recognize that it is a good thing to get every person in the country an education. The entire
country will benefit.

18
II.EMERGING TOPICAL THEMES
Affordability
Across participant groups, concern for their families’ future opportunities provided
a common experience that dialogue participants, who were strangers only moments
before, could identify with and understand. People weighed the views about whether
affordability of higher education would significantly impact access to college for
themselves or for someone in their families whose future concerned them. Participant
thinking reflected a specific concern that a college education would, quite simply, be
unaffordable. They are concerned about tight budgets, the costs of continuing an already
started education, incurring debt, and limited or no financial aid. All of these issues
they say pose threats to their time to gain a degree. Even though participants perceived
affordability as a consistent barrier to access, their thinking reflects an altruistic, albeit
improbable, contention that access to higher education should be available to anyone who
wants it. Dialogue participants offered their insights on this issue, saying:
Tuition is going up, it is expensive, and I have to afford housing and other living expenses. If
tuition continues to increase, it will double the time it takes me to get my education. I would
have to get a loan just to get through community college. I pay for everything myself; I can’t
make it to a four year institution on my own.
I’m on financial aid. My mom is a single mom who doesn’t make enough to
send me to school. I want to be and need to be in school.
Tuition is difficult to pay; I have a limited source of money. I pay for my own school and
I’m self supporting, with more aid, I could stay in school. Instead, I’m leaving to go to hair
(cosmetology) school, so that I can make enough money to come back to school.
In a vacuum, everyone would want to fund higher education. Money should not be a factor for
going to college. We don’t have money for funding higher education because it is going to other
priorities. Even though taking the philosophical stance that says education is very important,
the reality is that other priorities won’t get funded.
I don’t understand why we have to pay for higher education; in other countries, it is free.
Dialogue participants recommended that the College continue to consider and establish
policies that do not have an adverse financial impact on the communities’ interests and
values for assuring accessible and affordable higher education, like the one it has that
allows undocumented students to pay in-state tuition.

19
Government
It is the dialogue participants’ disposition that there are insufficient federal, state and
local funds committed to financial aid to help more people access higher education. Their
concern, they say, is that the state budget is overcommitted; it is locked into funding
projects, and, in their minds, higher education is not given a high enough priority in
the budget. Dialogue participants did not shy away from discussing the government’s
role and responsibilities in addressing this issue. Several expressed a willingness to pay
additional taxes, especially if those taxes could be designated for higher education.
The government’s spending priorities, dialogue participants think, may not be in line
with their own. Even though supporting education and health care is critical in their
thinking, they also expressed concern about the impact fully funding such programs
would have upon other programs. They questioned why the state did not do more to help
people prepare for college, including providing better investment programs. Dialogue
participants suggested that:
We should pay more taxes for the state government services we use, and we should expect to
get what we pay for. They should also close loopholes for major corporations. And look at
ways to save money because a lot of tax revenue is wasted. Why can’t we restructure the state
budget and cut some programs? Health care and education are most important for everyone and
should be fully funded, but it’s not fair for people from other countries to not be able to get the
education they deserve. If we eliminate ESL classes, for example, as part of restructuring, then
immigrants who need the help the most won’t be able to get it. Maybe if we make it clear to the
government that we think it is the state’s responsibility to support higher education, they could
withhold some taxes specifically for education, the way they do for social security.
Dialogue participants recommend that the College continue to proactively create and
cultivate opportunities with a broader stakeholder community, cultivate community
and campus-based advocacy education, and advocacy development strategies. These
strategies should be representative of the communities’ interests, values, and preferences
for state and federal higher education policy that assures affordable and accessible higher
education.
Social Order
Dialogue participants did not only think of the problems that a lack of access to and an
inability to afford a college education would have on them; they were also concerned
about the impact that accessibility to a higher education would have on society. Dialogue
participants were adamant that the United States’ standing in the global marketplace
would suffer substantial setbacks because limited access to higher education would
not only result in a population that was less educated, but it could also ultimately

20
impact our democracy, economy, and crime rates. However, some participants made
it clear that everyone did not want or need access to higher education. We also found
that participants felt strongly that forming partnerships with business is an essential
component of any effort to ensure access. However, it was important to ensure that these
partnerships were well managed to preclude business from making decisions for students
that should be made by the academic institution. Some participants thought that some of
the capacity challenges in higher education might be solved by improving the quality of
education in the K-12 years and holding students more accountable for their success.
Education builds a strong democracy.
Everybody in high school will be running the country; they need educated people; people who
are fully functioning in a democracy.
Lots of people do not buy into the notion that every child should be able to go to college. I
hear excuses like: 1) it’s not fair to kids to push them; 2) the good of having access to higher
education is limited; some students just don’t belong in college 3) if we let everyone in,
there might not be enough room for everyone; 4) if my son becomes a doctor who will be his
receptionist?
Education must meet the needs of business, but not at the expense of courses in the Humanities
and Fine Arts. So we will have to be mindful of which businesses will fund higher education,
and what control business will expect [to have] over the curriculum if they do fund it. Will
schools become indentured to businesses that fund them?
We need more committed students. What good is aid if the student isn’t motivated? Students
should have access to financial assistance, but they should also be responsible for a portion of
their own tuition if that is possible because the people who invest in their own education have a
higher success rate.
Dialogue participants recommend that the College develop strategies for enhancing its
advocacy with a broader Montgomery College and Montgomery County community
and develop relationships with community businesses that may provide scholarships or
education incentives to students.

21
College Mission
Parents are willing to advocate for the community college mission and should be invited
to participate in the College’s advocacy efforts. Gatekeepers for dialogues will self-
identify and work with the College to provide the thinking on this issue across groups.
This was an eye opener for many of us. The opportunity for our children to get an education
must continue beyond 12th grade, K-12 is not the end of our job.
The information is very important, I did not know what the dialogue was going to be about,
and now I feel enthusiastic that this is attainable.
Dialogue participants suggest that they can support Montgomery College’s
comprehensive mission by working with the College to identify strategies that will help
the College achieve an appropriate balance between capacity, affordability and access.
Montgomery College might consider increasing its community support for legislative
policies that will support its comprehensive mission by accessing its communities through
its gatekeepers.
The attraction of the community college as a provider of higher education—to the
working poor, to immigrants, to the adult learner and to students with special needs,
and now, to recent high school graduates—has given rise to the public’s perception that
higher education is essential to the democratic philosophy of this country.
Residents of Montgomery County support access to higher education as a
public good and are willing to work with and through the political process
to ensure that an education beyond 12th grade remains affordable for their
families and for themselves.
The most significant recommendation that participants made, supports including the
community in the decision-making process, by soliciting its perspectives and support. As
Montgomery College considers policies and procedures to address access and affordability
issues and the looming capacity challenge that public institution providers of higher
education for the residents of Maryland are facing, it is essential to include the thinking of
its communities.
The community college is doing a Herculean task and cannot meet all the
needs of the community. The community college should revisit its mission.

22
Final Thoughts
A dialogue process that facilitates the authentic participation of the public requires
determining what kind and how much participation is required to make decisions that
the community regards as legitimate. The College’s dialogue process can be viewed as
creating another level of legitimacy within the participant communities, and it was critical
in collecting information that will inform the College whether the services, activities, or
experiences it offers are having the desired impact on those who partake in them; that
is, is a difference being made in the lives of these individuals? Faced with the possibility
of having to make critical decisions on behalf of Montgomery College, the Board of
Trustees and the President perceive at risk access to higher education as a systemic issue
that requires an ongoing community wide response on many different levels. It is an issue
with many points of view of what the “true” problem is, and it is an issue that may be
resolved in a myriad of ways.
The College recently learned of a new American Council on Education (ACE) project to
promote better public understanding of the vast benefits of public investment in higher
education that may dovetail very nicely with the access work the College is doing. The
Montgomery College Board of Trustees concurs with President Nunley, who believes
that “nothing challenges Montgomery College more at this moment than the growing
enrollment demand that threatens and has already begun to outstrip our resources.”
One of the prevailing themes of Dr. Nunley’s presidency is “assuring access to higher
education – making a commitment to our community that we are here for all of them,
and that a College education should never be a dream deferred. Montgomery College
is and will be doing all that it can to make certain that its doors are open and that seats
are available to all who can benefit from higher education and desire to take part.” The
Trustees will be active participants in determining how Montgomery College can achieve
this goal and how to best be involved in the ACE project.

23
Appendices
Appendix 1: Methodology and Procedures
Appendix 2: Discussion of Process and Limitations
Appendix 3: Institutional Characteristics
Appendix 4: Montgomery College Dialogue Moderators
Appendix 5: Roster of Dialogue Participant Groups
Appendix 6: Dialogue Issue Summary

24
Appendix 1: Methodology and Procedure
Design
A qualitative research design was employed as an appropriate approach to hear and
understand the communities’ perspectives on the capacity crisis and assist the College
with its thinking as it formulated further plans and policies for addressing the issue. The
College convened 16 two-hour dialogues.
A recent Association of Governing Boards (AGB) article, Fulfilling the Promise of Civic
Engagement: How can boards stimulate the benefits of mission driven civic engagement? suggests
“the role of ‘referee’ in determining the style and importance of civic engagement on
any one campus may fall to the board of trustees. The responsibilities for trustees in
this area are at least threefold: (1) to work with their chief executive to determine
whether their institution’s mission provides guidance or a framework for civic and
social engagement; (2) to determine the relative priority, among the many priorities,
of their institutional commitment to engagement (including commitment of resources
and degree of public articulation of the commitment to engagement); and (3) to
determine the most effective ways to promote and inspire engagement on their respective
campuses and beyond.” 16
It would seem concomitant with this AGB perspective, that
after the State of the College Address members of the Montgomery College Board of
Trustees and civic leaders in the African American community suggested to President
Nunley that the College might want to begin a dialogue with members of the African
American community to enhance this community’s understanding of the capacity issue.
The Trustees and the President recognized that the “conventional avenues of citizen
involvement, such as public hearings, advisory boards, citizen commissions and task
forces, engage only a small number of citizens and typically involve only those with a
particular interest in the specific policy area.” 17
They challenged the staff to consider
some different strategies and tactics to engage broader and more ethnically diverse
segments of Montgomery County’s and Montgomery College’s communities. Among
the Trustees’ and the President’s fundamental questions were: how to bring these diverse
interests, needs, and perspectives together to identify common and unique concerns?
And how, as a community, we might work toward a common solution? These strategies
had to consider tactics for the College to facilitate the authentic participation of all its
communities, especially the culturally diverse communities in ways that go beyond the
everyday. Authentic participation is considered a deliberate process and practice by
public institutions, so that these institutions can move beyond mere public relations to
shared control with a broader community of stakeholders in planning, decision-making,
and outcomes.18
An authentic public engagement perspective also “assumes that many

25
stakeholders can and should be involved, not in every technical detail of College policy,
but in helping to set the broad directions and values from which policy proceeds...
Engaging these groups early on makes it more likely that important actors will view your
plan as legitimate and be willing to actively support it later, when you are putting it into
effect.” 19
Dialogue Format
This dialogue practice is based on the premise that to improve the nature of public
discourse, the participants must have the opportunity to:
• share their personal stakes (i.e., self-interest and what is of value to them) about
an issue and their preferences for a specific policy direction;
• weigh the benefits, consequences and cost of various public policy approaches with
other community members; and
• identify the common interests or common directions of their self-interests among
the self-interests of other dialogue participants.
It is an inclusive practice that recognizes that no one individual, institution or organization
has all the information or facts about an issue or concern. It is also a practice that
recognizes that there is no prevailing self-interest that determines the best public policy
strategy. As an engagement practice, deliberative dialogue also acknowledges that “the
public exists in informal associations and not just in formal organizations.” 20
Prior to a deliberative dialogue, an issue is identified (named), and defined and
synthesized (framed) in a context with languages that even non-expert publics and
communities can understand in terms of its scope and impact. The College staff,
therefore, developed and published an issue summary (in the form of a placemat) and
a seven minute videotaped message from President Nunley. This message presents an
overview of the capacity and access issues and the public policy implications articulated
in the Ability of Higher Education to Meet Enrollment Growth and Workforce Demands report
prepared by the University System of Maryland, the Maryland Association of Community
Colleges, and Maryland Higher Education Commission. The issue summary placemat is
titled Access to Higher Education at Risk: No Child Left Behind… Until College (Appendix 6)
and identifies the three approaches implicated by the report to address the capacity and
access crisis. These mutually exclusive approaches reflect the public policy implications
for the public and for higher education policy makers as they consider whether:

26
1. Access to higher education is a public good and suggests fully funding higher
workforce.
2. Access to higher education is a private good and suggests reducing funding to
higher education and letting students, their families, and business pick up the
costs.
3. Access to higher education is neither an issue of a public or private good; rather
it must accommodate the changing demands for higher education with a variety
of approaches for students, their families, and businesses.
Dialogue Participants
More than 200 representatives from the College’s internal stakeholders, including the
Montgomery College Board of Trustees, President’s Cabinet members, students, Staff
Senate and staff, Academic Assembly and faculty, and the faculty councils participated
in the dialogues. More than 300 dialogue participants from the College’s external
stakeholder communities from socioeconomically diverse communities also participated,
including members of the African American, Asian (Chinese, Indian, Korean and
Vietnamese), White, and Hispanic/Latino communities.
Dialogue Moderators
A cadre of more than 30 faculty and staff volunteers is now trained to moderate and
record the dialogues. These faculty and staff represent the vast array of cultural and ethnic
communities and their diverse languages, both at the College and within Montgomery
County. As one of the most diverse college’s in the country, Montgomery College has
more than 170 nations represented in its community of learners, educators and staff,
so identifying a multicultural and multilingual team to support this outreach to the
community was essential. Concerns that participation in the dialogues by some members
of the Hispanic/Latino community might be hampered because of their English language
proficiencies were addressed when the volunteers, fluent in Spanish, worked with the
College as dialogue moderators and recorders.

27
Appendix 2: Discusssion of the Dialogue Process and Limitations
There are many discursive processes, including debate, discussion, deliberation,
and dialogue, all of which have particular uses and value. And while “dialogue and
deliberation share some characteristics, the main differences are that dialogue seeks to
educate, and deliberation seeks both to educate and to decide.” 21
Although debate, a
conventional public discourse process also seeks to decide it has discursive characteristics
that are uniquely different from a deliberative dialogue. Debates have been characterized
as competitive, seeking to persuade, seeking majority, and promoting opinion. The
purpose of these dialogues was not intended to facilitate competition, persuade, promote
opinion, or seek majority.
The philosophical context of deliberation is that “the more we get together and talk,
the more we discover that we have a shared future and a shared destiny.” 22
Deliberative
dialogues are characterized as exploratory, building relationships to make decisions,
seeking understanding, and seeking private understanding to create public knowledge.
The Trustees, specific about the kind of discursive and engagement process it wanted to
facilitate, decided that a deliberative dialogue process is most compatible to accomplish
its goals and objectives – to engage a broader and more ethnically diverse segment of the
Montgomery County and Montgomery College communities. The public’s response to
Montgomery College facilitating their authentic participation in a deliberative dialogue
engagement practice might dispel an a priori assumption by this community college and
other higher education institutions that their most commonly used and conventional
practices (study circles, debates and town hall meetings) of relating to the public are
favored by the public.
The dialogue process used to seek understanding, create public knowledge, and explore
with the College and community decisions that must be considered about the capacity
challenges and access issues provides general understandings and perspectives that are
most salient to the issue. Recognizing that the dialogue participant communities are not
monolithic, the findings cannot be generalized to their larger community.

28
Appendix 3: Institutional Characteristics
Montgomery College is a multiethnic institution serving a diverse native and non-native
United States student population. The diversity of the College reflects the rapidly
growing diversity of Montgomery County, Maryland, and the Washington, D.C.,
metropolitan region. Montgomery College is the oldest community college in Maryland,
serving both Montgomery County and the region for more than 59 years. During that
time, Montgomery College has earned a reputation as one of the best two-year colleges
in the nation for the quality and scope of academic programs in the liberal arts, science,
business, and technology arenas. The College offers more than 125 degree and certificate
programs for students who wish to pursue an associate’s degree, transfer to a four-year
college or university, enter into the job market, upgrade career skills, complete an
apprenticeship, or enhance their lives through enrichment experiences. 12
The College has three main campuses, all located in Maryland: one in Germantown, one
in Rockville, and one in Takoma Park/Silver Spring. Students also enroll in Workforce
Development and Continuing Education courses at all three campuses and at satellite
facilities around the county. The College enrolls more than 55,000 students annually in
credit and in Workforce Development and Continuing Education courses.13
Of the Montgomery County Public School graduates who enroll in higher education
in Maryland, 61% come directly to Montgomery College. Approximately 40% of all
Montgomery County Public School graduates come to Montgomery College sometime
within their first two years after graduation. Montgomery College sends more graduates
to Maryland’s four-year public colleges and universities than any other community
college in the state. More than 36% of the College’s graduates go on to four-year
programs within the University System of Maryland.
The average age of students is 26.8 years. However, the greatest concentration of
students attending Montgomery College ranges between 18 and 24 years of age. Women
make up 55.8% of the student body. More than half the student population is composed
of minority students (59.3 %): Blacks 27.5%, Asians 15.8%, and Hispanics 16.0%.14
International students are roughly a third of the student population. They come from
more than 170 nations around the world. Among those nations most heavily represented
are India, El Salvador, Iran, Ethiopia, Vietnam, Korea, Cameroon, Nigeria, Ghana, and
Peru. Within that population, 4.1% are on diplomatic visas; 13.1% hold student visas;
3.3% have political asylum status and 2.0% are classified as refugees. The largest category
(51.6%) are international students classified as permanent residents.15

29
Appendix 4: Montgomery College Dialogue Moderators
1. Wayne Barbour, Office of Student Development, Germantown Campus
2. KitWah Boyce, Office of Equity and Diversity, Central Administration
3. Athos Brewer, Student Support Services, Rockville Campus
4. Clary Brown, Office of Human Resources, Central Administration
5. Monica Brown, Office of the Deans, Rockville Campus
6. Helen (Castellanos) Brewer, Educational Opportunities Center, Westfield South
7. Robert Cephas, Office of the President, Central Administration
8. Bo Chan, Office of the Deans, Rockville Campus
9. Sylvia Chen, Office of Admissions, Records, and Registration, Rockville Campus
10. Rowena D’Souza, Office of Human Resources, Central Administration
11. Elaine Doong, Office of Human Resources, Central Administration
12. Magdalena DuBois, Montgomery County Public Schools, ESOL
13. Enas Elhanafi, Office of Admissions, Records, and Registration, Rockville Campus
14. Marva Watts Fletcher, Office of Budget and Audits, Central Administration
15. Evelyn Gonzalez-Mills, Office of Student Development,
Takoma Park/Silver Spring Campus
16. Tony Hawkins, Office of the Dean,Germantown Campus
17. Gail Kaneshiro, Office of Budget and Audits, Central Administration
18. Sumita Kim, Rockville Art Department, Rockville Campus
19. Patti Lopez, Office of Financial Aid, Rockville Campus
20. Sylvia Y. Maranon, Montgomery County Public Schools, ESOL
21. Maria V. Medina, Montgomery County Public Schools, ESOL

30
22. Miller Newman, Office of the President, Central Administration
23. Tuyet Nguyen-Jackson, Office of Admissions, Records, and Registration, Rockville Campus
24. Ijeoma Otigbuo, Department of Biology, Takoma Park/Silver Spring Campus
25. Karen Penn de Martinez, Computer Applications Department, Rockville Campus
26. Hercules Pinkney, Office of the Vice President and Provost, Germantown Campus
27. Carmen Posten-Farmer, Office of the Executive Vice President for Academic
and Student Services, Central Administration
28. Rodney Redmond, Office of the Deans, Rockville Campus
29. Linda Robinson, Office of Student Development, Rockville Campus
30. Yanira Ruiz, Office of Student Development, Rockville Campus
31. Silvia Santiago, Montgomery County Public Schools, ESOL
32. Michelle T. Scott, Office of Equity and Diversity, Central Administration
33. Tanuja Shah, Office of Information Technology, Rockville Campus
34. Hilda Smith, Office of Student Development, Rockville Campus
35. Nathan Starr, Department of Sociology, Anthropology, and Criminal Justice,
Rockville Campus
36. Denise Stoutamire, Office of Equity and Diversity, Central Administration
37. Mansur Tavakoli, School of Art and Design, Takoma Park/Silver Spring Campus
38. Marlon Vallejo-Vallencia, Office of Admissions, Records, and Registration, Rockville Campus
39. Beatrice Weiss, Montgomery County Public Schools, ESOL
40. Robert Walker, AmorWorks Consulting
41. Teresa Wright, Montgomery County Public Schools, ESOL
42. Monica Wong, Office of Business Services, Central Administration
43. Jacqueline Zappala, Office of Equity and Diversity, Central Administration

31
Appendix 5: Roster of Dialogue Participant Groups
Dialogue Participants from the Montgomery College Internal Communities
Board of Trustees
Cabinet Members
Academic Assembly
Faculty Council
Staff Senate
Members of the Bargaining and Non-Bargaining Staff
Members of the Student Body
Dialogue Facilitators
Dialogue Participants from the Montgomery College External Communities
Members of the 2005 Class of the American Council on Education (ACE) Fellows
Members of the Montgomery County African American Community
Members of the Montgomery County Asian Community
Members of the Montgomery County Hispanic Community (Down-County)
Members of the Montgomery County Hispanic Community (Up-County)
Members of the Leadership Montgomery Class 2004-05
Montgomery County Pubic School ESOL Counselors
Members of the Montgomery County Pubic School PTSA Presidents

32
Appendix6:DialogueIssueSummary
AccesstoHigherEducationatRisk:NoChildLeftBehind…UntilCollege.
AbouttheCenterforCommunityLeadershipDevelopmentandPublicPolicyatMontgomeryCollege...
TheCenterforCommunityLeadershipDevelopmentandPublicPolicywasfoundedin2000toenableMontgomeryCollegetoexpandandenhanceitscommunityoutreachmission.TheCenterprovides
complementaryprogramsforrelatingwiththecommunity,individuals,organizations,businesses,institutions,governmentagencies,andfoundations.Itservesasasiteforconductingresearchonissuesthat
impacttheciviclifeofcommunities,andforfacilitatingcivildiscussionsoncommunityissuesthatcanleadtoproblem-solvingandtheenhancementofourpubliclife.TheCenterinitiatesandstrengthensgrass
rootscommunityleadershipdevelopmentandpublicpolicyengagementfromlocaltoglobalissuesamongstudents,faculty,staff,andmembersofthecommunity.Formoreinformation,contacttheCenterat
301-279-5276.
Highereducationleadersarebecomingincreasinglyconcernedovertheimpactour“flounderingeconomy,cutstohighereducationspendingbycashstrappedstates,and
arisingdemandforacollegeeducationspurredbydemographicchanges”willhaveonourlocalandstatepublicinstitutionsofhigherlearning.Thereisnoquestionthat
educationbeyondhighschoolisessentialtotheoccupationalandfinancialwellbeingofournation’syouth.Marylandlegislatorsconcernedaboutfuturedemands,capacity
issues,andaccessinhighereducation,soughtinputfromitshighereducationcommunity.ThehighereducationworkgroupfoundthatMarylandindeedfacespressing
challengesinallthreeareas.TohelpthecitizensofMarylandconsiderthisissue,MontgomeryCollege,throughitsCenterforCommunityLeadershipDevelopmentand
PublicPolicy,hasdevelopedaframeworktoencourageandsupportpublicdialoguethatincludesthreepossibleapproachesforaddressingapotentialstatewidecollegeaccess
crisis.Eachchoicepresentsapotentialwayofaddressingtheproblemasweinhighereducationseeit;eachrepresentsadifferentsetofprioritiesandviewpoints.Montgomery
Collegeinvitesyoutousethisframeworktodialoguewithfriends,neighborsandcolleaguesacrossthestate.Agoalofpublicdeliberationandengagementisnotonlytosolve
theproblem,butalsotolistentowhatvariousmembersofourcommunityhavetosay.Sowhatdoyouhavetosay?

33
Notes
1. Montgomery College, Montgomery College: Fulfilling the Promise of Endless Possibilities,
(March 31, 2004).
2. National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education, Responding to Crisis in College
Opportunity, (January, 2004).
3. Alice Gomstyn, U.S. Faces a College-Access Crisis, Education-Policy Group Warns,
(The Chronicle of Higher Education, October 10, 2003).
4. Sarah Hebel, California’s Budget Woes Lead to Colleges to Limit Access, (The
Chronicle of Higher Education, October 10, 2003).
5. Associated Press, Community Colleges Turn Away 35,000, (Orlando Sentinel,
September 18, 2003).
(March 31, 2004).
(March 31, 2004).
8. Lawrence C. Walters, James Aydelotte, and Jessica Miller, Putting More Public in
Policy Analysis, (Public Administration Review, 60, 4, Jul/Aug 2000), 350.
9. Tony Chambers and John Burkhardt, Fulfilling the Promise of Civic Engagement:
How can boards stimulate the benefits of mission-driven civic engagement, (Priorities,
22, Winter, 2004).
10. PEW Foundation. New directions in civic engagement: University avenue meets main street,
(2004), 108.
11. David Mathews and Noelle McAfee, Making Choices Together: The Power of Public
Deliberation, Charles Kettering Foundation, (2002).
12. Montgomery College, Office of Planning and Research, (Office of Planning and
Research Web page, 2005).
13. ibid.
14. ibid.

34
15. ibid.
16. Tony Chambers and John Burkhardt, Fulfilling the Promise of Civic Engagement:
How can boards stimulate the benefits of mission-driven civic engagement, (Priorities,
22, Winter, 2004)1-15.
17. Edward Weeks, The Practice of Deliberative Democracy: Results from Four Large
Scale Trials, (Public Administration Review, Volume 60, 4, Jul/Aug 2000).
18. Cheryl S. King, Kathryn M. Feltey, and Bridget O. Susel, The Question of
Participation: Toward Authentic Public Participation in Public Administration,
(Public Administration Review, 58, 4, 1998, July/August), 319.
19. Will Friedman, Facilitating Achieving the Dream Planning through Public Engagement
Strategies: A Guide for Community College Leadership Teams, Public Agenda for Achieving the
Dream: Community Colleges Count, (2004).
20. ibid.
Deliberation, (Charles F. Kettering Foundation, 2002).
Deliberation, (Charles F. Kettering Foundation, 2002).

35
References
Chambers, T. Burkhardt, J. (2004). Fulfilling the promise of civic engagement: How
can boards stimulate the benefits of mission-driven civic engagement? Priorities.
Community colleges turn away 35,000. (2003, September 18). Orlando Sentinel.
Gomstyn,A. (2003, October 10). U.S. faces a college-access crisis, education-policy
group warns. The Chronicle of Higher Education.
Hebel, S. (2003, October 10). California’s budget woes lead to colleges to limit access.
The Chronicle of Higher Education.
King, C. S., Feltey, K. M., Susel, B. O. (1998, July/August). The question of
participation: Toward authentic public participation in public administration. Public
Administration Review, 58(4).
Mathews D. McAfee, N. (2001). Making choices together: The power of public deliberation.
Dayton, Ohio: Charles F. Kettering Foundation.
Montgomery College. (2003). Ability of Higher Education to Meet Enrollment Growth and
Workforce Demands.Retrieved June 5, 2005, from http://www.montgomerycollege.
edu/Departments/inplrsh/At_Risk.pdf.
Montgomery College. (2004). Montgomery College:Fulfilling the promise of endless possibilities.
Rockville, MD:Author.
Montgomery College. (2005). Montgomery College profile and institutional characteristics.
Office of Planning and ResearchWeb page. Rockville, MD:Author.
National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education (January, 2004). Responding to
crisis in college opportunity. San Jose, CA:Author.
PEW Foundation. (2004). New directions in civic engagement:University avenue meets main
street.Retrieved on September 20, 2004, from http://www.pew-partnership.org/
whatsnew.html
Walters, L. C.,Aydelotte, J., Miller, J. (2000, July/August). Putting more public in
policy analysis. Public Administration Review, 60 (4).
Weeks, Edward. (2000, July/August).The practice of deliberative democracy: Results
from four large scale trials. Public Administration Review, 60 (4).
Young, B. (2004, Fall).The increasing challenge of maintaining open access. Trustee
Quarterly.

2008 Access at Risk Report

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to 2008 Access at Risk Report

Similar to 2008 Access at Risk Report (20)

2008 Access at Risk Report