Capturing the Complexity: Classification Systems for Community and Two-Year Colleges

ERIC Clearinghouse for Community Colleges

By Carrie B. Kisker

EDO-JC-03-08

September, 2003

America’s community and two-year college enroll three-fourths of all freshman and sophomore students in the nation. This important set of institutions varies greatly in their missions, objectives, outcomes, and characteristics. Some are public, some are private; some are for-profit, some are not; some focus on occupational and technical skill certification, and some primarily act as feeder institutions for four-year colleges and universities. Yet the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education, the most widely used categorization system for colleges and universities, lumps two-year colleges into a single category. That one category currently contains 42 percent of America’s institutions of higher education, and greatly minimizes the complexity and variety among these institutions.

A reliable classification system for two-year institutions would allow researchers to draw representative samples of community colleges, greatly enhancing the accuracy and applicability of research in the field (Katsinas, 2003). In addition, classification would benefit community college practitioners and regional accrediting boards, allowing for institutional comparisons among schools with similar missions and characteristics. As well, categorization of two-year colleges would benefit governmental, institutional and system-wide policy development, and would inform student choices about where to pursue higher education (Merisotis & Shedd, 2003). A robust classification system is essential to capturing the diversity of two-year institutions and in advancing our understanding of this large and varied sector of our higher education system.

This Digest is drawn from the Summer 2003 edition of New Directions for Community Colleges, entitled “Classification Systems for Two-Year Colleges.” It explores the desired outcomes of classification, provides an overview of proposed methods of classifying two-year colleges, and discusses considerations for evaluating different types of classification systems.

Desired Outcomes of Classification Schemes

It is clearly important to classify community colleges into meaningful categories, yet how should this varied set of institutions be organized? Thomas Bailey (2003) believes it is important to think carefully about the desired outcomes and purposes of each potential classification scheme. Is a system that differentiates colleges based on external characteristics such as size, location, or control (public or private) the most applicable? Or would a scheme that categorizes colleges on the basis of their primary products or outcomes -- such as degree of focus on liberal arts or the transfer function -- be more useful to researchers, policymakers and practitioners?

Bailey (2003) argues that the most appropriate classification system may vary depending upon how the information will be used. For example, an output-based schema may be most important to a high school graduate searching for an institution that will help her to transfer to a four-year college, and a system based on characteristics might be more useful to a researcher attempting to compile a national data set about part-time faculty at two-year institutions. Thus, the solution may be to have a variety of systems, which is, in fact, what the Carnegie Foundation For the Advancement of Teaching is planning to propose (Bailey, 2003). The following section provides a brief overview of several possible classification schemes, each of which was presented in detail in the Summer 2003 edition of New Directions for Community Colleges.

Proposed Systems for Classifying Two-Year Colleges

Classification Systems Based on College Characteristics

The Katsinas Model. Katsinas’ main objective is to create an “inclusive classification of two-year colleges that is both stable and meaningful to practitioners, researchers, and public policymakers” (2003, pp. 20-21). Thus, he proposes a classification scheme based on institutional control, geography, governance, and size. In doing so, he captures the universe of two-year colleges while acknowledging that public and private institutions are often very different beings. In addition, he alleges that rural colleges face different challenges and opportunities than do urban and suburban institutions, and makes the practical distinctions between large and small colleges as well as multi-campus systems and single campus institutions.

The Cohen Model. Cohen’s (2003) first concern in classifying two-year colleges is that the system must be descriptive but not hierarchical, so as not to group institutions in a way that promotes or encourages rankings or judgments of effectiveness. Therefore, he proposes a classification scheme in which the main criterion is college size, as it is the most distinguishing characteristic of public two-year colleges. In addition, he demonstrates that college size is strongly related to other factors such as the percentages of full-time and part-time students and faculty, the amount of focus on liberal arts curriculum, the percentage of revenue received from federal grants and contracts, and per capita expenditures on instruction and testing.

The Merisotis and Shedd Model. The purpose of Merisotsis and Shedd’s (2003) model is to develop a data-driven classification system for two-year colleges that is supportive of policy development. To do so, the researchers performed cluster analyses of data collected from the National Center for Education Statistics, and came up with a schema consisting of three categories: Public institutions (differentiated by institutional enrollment); private non-profit colleges (categories included allied health institutions and degree or certificate-granting schools); and private for-profit colleges (differentiated by institutional focus on awarding certificates or degrees).

Output – Based Classification Systems

The Schuyler Model. Believing that colleges can be categorized based on curricular focus, Schuyler (2003) performed multiple regression analyses to identify the variables that predict a collegiate concentration in the liberal arts. She found that institutional enrollment emerged as the most powerful predictor of the percentage of liberal arts courses offered at a college, whereas high instructional expenditures, auxiliary revenues, and expenditures per student were all associated with institutions that focus on occupational training and certification. Thus, Schuyler proposes two distinct categories of two-year institutions (occupational and liberal arts), and suggests using each school’s total enrollment as a proxy for classifying colleges.

The Shaman and Zemsky Model. In an attempt to move away from the top-down categories often used in classifying colleges and universities, Shaman and Zemsky (2003) developed a categorization of two-year colleges based on the amount of tuition and fees charged by each school. This market-based schema also identifies and distinguishes colleges that emphasize formal degree programs from institutions that focus on delivery of courses and training. Based on their price model, Shaman and Zemsky propose three separate categories of two-year colleges; those with a focus on degree production, those that specialize in course delivery, and those that emphasize both degree programs and skills courses.

Considerations for Evaluating Classification Systems

Each of the five proposed systems has its strengths and weaknesses, in part because two-year colleges serve the educational needs of diverse communities with different expectations, all operating under various governance structures (Phillippe and Boggs 2003). However, de los Santos (2003) offers criteria for evaluating classification schemas. In order to be useful to researchers, policy-makers, and practitioners, systems should be “valid, meaningful, descriptive and not hierarchical, replicable, mutually exclusive, policy-relevant, and suitable for use with readily available objective data collected regularly at the national level” (p. 88).

Even if all models meet the above criteria, however, some may be more or less suitable depending upon the research question. According to Bailey (2003), when evaluating or choosing between classification models, one must keep in mind the ultimate goals and purposes of the schema: Is it more important to use a model such as the one proposed by Katsinas that will be useful in comparing and benchmarking like institutions? Or is it preferable to use a classification system like that developed by Shaman and Zemsky that predicts the prices charged by different colleges? Phillippe and Boggs (2003) note that no single classification system will fit every situation, and that researchers must choose a schema that most closely matches the nature of their study.

Conclusion

While it may not be feasible to develop a classification system for two-year colleges that is appropriate in every situation, the five proposed models demonstrate that it is possible to capture the variety and complexity of two-year institutions of higher education in ways that benefit researchers, practitioners, prospective students, and policy-makers. Further, it is imperative that the chosen classification scheme utilizes a readily available national data set. A classification system that accomplishes these goals will greatly advance our understanding of this very large and important sector of our higher education system.

References

This Digest is drawn from:

McCormick, A. C., & Cox, R. D. (Eds.). (2003, Summer). Classification systems for two-year colleges. New Directions for Community Colleges, 122. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bailey, T. R. A researcher’s perspective. (pp. 93-100).

Cohen, A. M. College size as the major discriminator. (pp. 39-46).

De los Santos, A. G. Jr. A practitioner’s perspective. (pp. 87-92).

Katsinas, S. G. Two-year college classifications based on institutional control, geography, governance, and size. (pp. 17-28).

McCormick, A. C., & Cox, R. D. Classifying two-year colleges: Purposes, possibilities, and pitfalls. (pp. 7-16).

Merisotis, J. P., & Shedd, J. M. Using IPEDS to develop a classification system for two-year postsecondary institutions. (pp. 47-62).

Phillippe, K. A., & Boggs, G. R. The perspective of the American Association of Community Colleges. (pp. 79-86).

Schuyler, G. A curriculum-based classification system for community colleges. (pp. 29-38).

Shaman, S. M., & Zemsky, R. On markets and other matters: A price model for public two-year colleges. (pp. 63-76).

This project has been funded at least in part with Federal funds from the U.S. Department of Education under contract number ED-99-CO-0010. The content of this publication does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the U.S. Department of Education nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. ERIC Digests are in the public domain and may be freely reproduced.

University of California, Los Angeles
3051 Moore Hall
P.O. Box 951521
Los Angeles, CA 90095
Updated October 10, 2003