GED and other noncredit courses: The other ... - Wiley Online Library

3

This chapter examines the involvement of the community college in the GED process as well as the academic outcomes for high school dropouts who have enrolled in the program. Using Iowa as an example, the chapter examines the available data and derives important policies for GED in specific and other noncredit coursework in general.

GED and Other Noncredit Courses: The Other Side of the Community College Andrew J. Ryder, Linda Serra Hagedorn While the vast amount of research on the topic of American community colleges is limited to those students enrolled in credit-bearing courses, it must be stressed that approximately 40 percent (headcount) of community colleges are enrolled in noncredit programs (American Association of Community Colleges, 2011). The National Center for Education Statistics Report on Occupational Programs (2001) reported that 41 percent of lessthan-four-year institutions offered at least one occupational program on a noncredit basis. Perhaps surprisingly, a major proportion of the workforce development performed by the community college is done through the noncredit sector. In fact, community colleges actively contributed to economic revitalization of the 1980s by attracting businesses to invest in contract training through noncredit instruction (Jacobs and Dougherty, 2006). Currently, some states are beginning to recognize noncredit workplace training and even providing some reimbursement (Phillippe and Sullivan, 2005). However ubiquitous noncredit may be, noncredit students remain the neglected sector of the community college mission, which is usually described as having these components: transfer, vocational, general education, and noncredit community outreach (emphasis added; Breneman and Nelson 1981; Labaree 1997). Some would add “remedial” as another important component of the mission. In fact, The National Profile of Community Colleges (Phillippe and Sullivan, 2005) does not even include

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH, no. 153, Spring 2012 © Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) • DOI: 10.1002/ir.20004

21

22

DATA USE IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE

noncredit enrollments because “no accurate national data exist about noncredit activity at community colleges” (p. ix.). Even the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), the primary source of data on colleges, is devoid of information on noncredit enrollments.

Noncredit Programs: A Path Ahead for Students Left Behind Among the diverse and varied missions of community colleges is the provision of instruction for students who have either been underserved by their previous educational institutions or not had the opportunity to complete high school (Cohen and Brawer, 2008; Oudenhoven, 2002). Included under this umbrella are low-performing high school students, individuals with low basic skills, and those who have prematurely left high school prior to earning a diploma. Principally, community colleges fulfill this aspect of their mission through noncredit courses and programs in adult developmental education (Cohen and Brawer, 2008). While missions vary across localities and states, providing basic and secondary education as well as GED (General Education Development) preparation is often overlooked as a way community colleges expand access to education (Dougherty and Townsend, 2006; Ratcliff, 1994). Bailey and Morest (2004) have described these developmental education programs as part of community colleges’ “horizontal” mission of reaching out and across their service areas. Virtually all colleges in Achieving the Dream, a national initiative to improve student success, have focused on remedial education and the progress of students underprepared for college-level work, but to our knowledge only one—LaGuardia Community College in New York—has explicitly included GED students as a student population whose academic improvement and transition to college-level readiness must be examined and improved. The college set a specific goal that 80 percent of its GED students would be “fully prepared for college-level work” (LaGuardia Community College, 2011). Some students enrolling in these programs could be described as functionally literate, but seeking enhanced personal and economic opportunities. Others, who do possess basic skills, may face limited job options due to a lack of a high school diploma. It is for these individuals that the noncredit side of the community college offers a navigable path toward credit-bearing postsecondary training and education. Typically, noncredit programs are offered at facilities and venues accessible to students at times designed to fit an array of schedules (Grubb, Badway, and Bell, 2003). Furthermore, noncredit courses are often offered in close proximity to creditbearing programs. Grubb, Badway, and Bell (2003, p. 220) have argued that noncredit education is a vehicle to create a “bridge” to credit programs. Calcagno, Crosta, Bailey, and Jenkins (2007) reported basic and secondary skills education, such as that offered in GED and adult NEW DIRECTIONS FOR INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH • DOI: 10.1002/ir

GED AND OTHER NONCREDIT COURSES

23

education programs, benefits low-performing students who desire to pursue further education. This chapter is focused primarily on the role of GED preparation within the community college and how students earn the GED and transition to credit-bearing postsecondary educational opportunities. Despite the admonition by Grubb, Badway, and Bell (2003) that community colleges locate noncredit and for-credit programs in proximity and establish clear articulation procedures to simplify student transfer, many community colleges are seriously challenged by inadequate data and separate organizational structures for credit and noncredit offerings. As such, the study of noncredit to credit outcomes is all but missing from the research literature. This chapter uses data from the Iowa community colleges system as an example of the progression of students as well as an examination of the available data. We close by making recommendations for standardizing and managing completion and demographic data pertaining to noncredit enrollments.

A Brief History and Background of the GED The present-day battery of General Educational Development tests originated during World War II and was a direct result of the U.S. Army’s desire to provide soldiers who enlisted prior to completion of high school graduation the opportunity to earn a credential (GED Testing Service, 2008; Ginzberg and Bray, 1953; Houle, Burr, Hamilton, and Yale, 1947; Strehlow, 1967; Tyler, 2005). In 1947, New York became the first state to allow civilian high school dropouts to use the GED credential in place of a high school diploma, and by 1948, twenty-one other states had followed New York’s example (Quinn, 2002; Tyler, 2005). To prevent students from seeking to take the GED in lieu of finishing high school, the states established minimum ages for taking the test battery, ranging from eighteen to twenty-two. By 1959, the number of civilians taking the test battery had exceeded the number of military veterans, and in 1963 the GED Testing Service was established (Allen and Jones, 1992; Quinn, 2002). Participation in the GED testing program increased rapidly, from 61,000 people taking the test in 1960 to 293,000 in 1969. The sharp increase in GED participation was attributed to federal support for adult basic and secondary education programs through the Great Society legislation of the 1960s and the growing number of Baby Boomers entering their teens and twenties (Quinn, 2002; Tyler, 2005). The Adult Basic Education Program was codified by Title IIB of the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, the centerpiece legislation of President Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty. The act funded instruction for persons eighteen years or older whose literacy or English language skills prevented them from getting or keeping a job (Economic Opportunity Act, 1964; Quinn, 2002; Tyler, 2005). NEW DIRECTIONS FOR INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH • DOI: 10.1002/ir

24


The GED remained largely unchanged until 1978, when the GED Testing Service released the first major revision, reducing the amount of reading required of test takers, changing math questions to be more practical in nature, and reducing the overall testing period from ten to six hours (Tyler, 2005). The 1980s featured calls for higher standards in K–12 education from policy analysts, politicians, and the general public. For their part, the American Council on Education (ACE) and the GED Testing Service responded by adding a 45-minute essay portion to the writing skills subtest. The third-generation battery of GED tests was released in 1988, with essays graded on writing mechanics and the authors’ ability to support their assertions on a topic (Allen and Jones, 1992; Tyler, 2005). The fourth generation of the GED battery of tests, released in 2002, consists of five tests covering language, arts/writing, mathematics, science, social studies, and language arts/reading. The battery was designed to better align with national curriculum standards. The 2002 tests emphasized adult contexts and practical applications, added essay organization to the scoring rubric for the writing test and, for the first time, allowed test takers to use a calculator on the math subtest (Ezzelle and Setzer, 2009; Tyler, 2005). The 2002 GED series places “an increased emphasis on the workforce and higher education” (Ezzelle and Setzer, 2009, p. 2). A fifth revision is scheduled for release in 2012 as a result of a business partnership between ACE and Pearson Education. A joint ACE-Pearson press release reported that the new test battery will be more rigorous, “aligned with Common Core State Standards,” and will help connect GED candidates to “career and postsecondary educational opportunities” (McDonough and Gaber, 2011). The 2002 Series GED Tests. At the time of this writing, the 2002 test battery is the most recent GED edition, with both full technical specifications and question designs available. The GED compares candidates’ cognitive abilities to those of high school graduates by administering the test to a national sample of graduating high school seniors. The technical manual outlining the philosophical underpinnings, curricular focus, and measurement properties notes that this latest battery of tests assesses content knowledge reflective of high school attainment and places an increased emphasis on workforce readiness. Test Structure and Format. The GED consists of five subtests: Language Arts, Writing; Language Arts, Reading; Social Studies; Science; and Mathematics. The Language Arts Writing test consists of a section of multiple-choice questions focused on document editing, plus a section requiring test takers to write an essay using supporting examples from their own experience in response to a prompt. The Language Arts Reading exam tests students’ reading comprehension by presenting a short text followed by a series of related multiple-choice questions. The Social Studies and Science tests require students to read and interpret various source NEW DIRECTIONS FOR INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH • DOI: 10.1002/ir


25

materials (that is, texts, charts, maps, and other graphics) in order to respond correctly to corresponding multiple-choice items. The first part of the mathematics test allows students to use an issued calculator while the second part, dedicated to problem solving, does not include calculator use. Total time allotted to complete the full test battery is 425 minutes or just over seven hours (Ezzelle and Setzer, 2009). Scoring and Passing Standards. Even though the number of items on each test in the GED battery differs, each test has a standard score range of 200 to 800. Percentile ranks are also reported (Ezzelle and Setzer, 2009). The written essay portion of the Language Arts Writing test is scored on a four-point scale by two trained readers using a five-pronged evaluation rubric: response to the prompt, organization, development and details, conventions of edited American English, and word choice (Ezzelle and Setzer, 2009). The standardized scale mean for the GED is 500, with a standard deviation of 100 points. Passing standards for the 2002 series tests are based on the results earned by the graduating high school seniors. Based on the norming data, the GED panel of advisors and experts set the passing standard for the GED at a score on each test of 410, plus an overall average score of 450 across all five tests. Students not passing the tests can apply to retake it. The passing standard reflects a high level of achievement without surpassing the performance of recent high school graduates (Ezzelle and Setzer, 2009). The K-R 20 coefficients reported by the GED Testing Service for the various forms of the test ranged from .92 to .96 (Ezzelle and Setzer, 2009; Robinson, 2008). The GED and Noncredit in Iowa. With the general explanations complete, we now concentrate on one state—Iowa. We focus here because the state’s GED preparation and testing programs are administered exclusively through the noncredit Adult Literacy programs at Iowa community colleges, so data availability is not confounded by for-profit GED preparation providers. Adult literacy in Iowa is organized to include adult basic education (ABE), English as a second language (ESL), and adult secondary education (ASE). Instructors based at each of Iowa’s fifteen community colleges, branch campuses, and affiliated educational centers deliver GED preparation courses (Iowa Department of Education, 2009b, 2010a). Given the rural nature of Iowa, affiliated educational centers include a range of locations so that instruction is widely available to persons lacking a high school credential. Locations include houses of worship, community centers, and homeless shelters. Statewide GED enrollment was over 9,300 in 2009 (Iowa Department of Education, 2009a, 2010b). Although all fifty states offer the GED, passing scores vary by state. Iowa fixes passing scores as those recommended by the GED Testing Service and ACE—a score of at least 410 on each test in the GED battery, with an average score of 450 across all tests (Iowa Department of Education, 2010c). NEW DIRECTIONS FOR INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH • DOI: 10.1002/ir

26


Data Issues for GED and Other Noncredit Programs In many states, if noncredit education is tracked at all, it is measured only in terms of course contact hours. While contact hours may indicate program intensity over a period of time, the only way to measure course completion is by comparing contact hours with the number of hours required to complete the program. This process, however, is inexact, cumbersome, and reliant on good data management at the community college level, where protocols for managing noncredit data vary among colleges and from state to state. Such is the case in Iowa, meaning that GED and other noncredit programs providing educationally and economically valuable instruction to students fail to garner much analytic attention. In other words, the programs may not be subject to close, data-driven scrutiny. In fact, noncredit programs constitute a substantial proportion of enrollments and contact hours in a variety of offerings overlapping with nearly every aspect of the community college mission. Continuing education features noncredit offerings in motor vehicle operation and certifications from child care to software. Community service and education courses are universally noncredit, with offerings in arts, crafts, and recreational activities. Most workforce or vocational-technical courses are available in noncredit format, ranging from career-oriented programs to job retraining, and contract programs with local employers as well as a host of short courses to develop skills in welding, information technology, management, and health care. Finally, all adult and developmental education courses, from English as a second language to literacy and basic skills and the GED, fall under the noncredit umbrella. In fiscal year 2008, 289,098 individuals (unduplicated) enrolled in these kinds of noncredit programs across Iowa’s fifteen community colleges. While for-credit enrollments accounted for just less than 2 million contact hours statewide, noncredit enrollments accounted for nearly 9 million contact hours (Iowa Department of Education, 2009a). In Iowa, similar to other states, noncredit programs are counted differently. The basic conversion is that one full-time equivalent (FTE) in forcredit enrollment is equivalent to 480 contact hours, while one FTE in noncredit enrollment is set to 600 contact hours. The different formulas for counting students resulted in widely disparate Iowa FTE counts for fiscal year 2008. Reported data show only 14,780 FTE noncredit enrollments compared to 77,454 FTE for-credit enrollments. Iowa’s fiscal year 2008 FTE totaled 92,234, of which only 16 percent were noncredit students; however, these same students accounted for 69 percent (289,098) of the state’s 417,244 unduplicated headcount (Iowa Department of Education, 2009a). The consequence of such disparities is that far less attention is paid to the breadth of people served by noncredit programs and the differences these kinds of programs make for their students (Grubb, Badway, and Bell, 2003). Table 3.1 provides a comparison between Iowa credit and noncredit data for fiscal year 2008. NEW DIRECTIONS FOR INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH • DOI: 10.1002/ir


27

Table 3.1. Iowa 2008 Credit and Noncredit Enrollments

Credit Enrollments Noncredit Enrollments

Total Contact Hours

Number FTE

Unduplicated Headcount

1.2 million 9 million

77,454 14,780

128,146 289,098

GED preparation, however, is the rare noncredit program that actually carries an indication of program completion—namely, whether or not GED candidates succeed in passing the GED test battery. GED programs often have better data collection than other noncredit programs because of state and federal requirements to demonstrate high school equivalency and educational time on task for continued participation in public assistance programs. Consequently, community colleges collect data on these noncredit students that is far more complete. Where it is difficult to longitudinally analyze the educational pursuits of most noncredit participants, data on GED candidates and completers provide a model for duplication elsewhere. It may also inform discussions related to measuring student learning outcomes and competency-based instruction.

Noncredit to Credit: GED to Community College Data in Iowa A recent study combined data from Iowa community college noncredit and credit program to examine postsecondary educational attainment of Iowa GED students under the age of fifty (Ryder, forthcoming). We provide the results of this research to indicate the flow of students from noncredit to credit in the GED program. The data for the study included pre- and post-GED program information for all candidates (N = 11,675) enrolled in GED preparation in Iowa between July 1, 2003, and the end of June 30, 2004. Available data included student demographics (age, gender, race, ethnicity), employment and socioeconomic status, reason for enrolling in the program, and diagnostic test scores used to place at the appropriate K–12 grade level. As students take and pass the GED, scores from the GED subject tests (reading, writing, math, social studies, science) and data on academic and employment plans are entered into student records. These data were matched with community college enrollment data, exclusive of grades, grade point average, and Pell status, for GED earners who enrolled in for-credit courses at Iowa community colleges during the five years between July 2004 and June 2009. These data come from the Management Information System (MIS) file of Iowa community college students as supplied by Iowa’s fifteen community colleges. Variables include demographic and socioeconomic characteristics, goals or aspirations for community college study, academic major or program, number of NEW DIRECTIONS FOR INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH • DOI: 10.1002/ir

28


Table 3.2. Demographic, Socioeconomic, and Aspirational Characteristics of Iowa’s 2003–2004 GED Candidates Variable Gender Female Age Group 18–23 24–30 31–40 41–50 Race and Ethnicity Alaskan/American Indian Asian/Pacific Islander Black Latino Family Status Single parent Socioeconomic Indicators Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Other public assistance (free bus fare, free or reduced lunch) Unemployed Educational Aspirationa Earn GED Improve basic skills Get or keep job Enter college or training

N

Percent

6,005

51.4

6,190 2,717 1,807 961

53.0 23.3 15.5 8.2

261 222 1,722 1,083

2.3 1.9 14.8 9.3

1,674

14.3

1,342 873 6,021

11.5 7.5 51.6

4,762 6,796 3,546 1,614

40.8 58.2 30.4 13.8

a GED candidates may choose up to two aspirations, making frequencies greater than 100% of the total. N = 11,675

credits earned, terms of enrollment, and credentials earned. The resulting student-level data set allowed for longitudinal analysis of students’ educational experiences from GED enrollment to postsecondary enrollment to earning a postsecondary credential between July 1, 2003, and June 30, 2009. Table 3.2 provides a summary of the demographic, socioeconomic, and educational goal variables for 2003–04 Iowa GED candidates. As individuals were tracked over time, from GED completion to college enrollment to earning a credential, the number of cases in the data set decreased. Of the initial sample of 11,675 GED candidates, only 4,089 individuals completed the five subtests of the GED. Of this total, 3,742 persons passed all five tests and earned the GED.

Implications for Policy and Research Most of the literature on community colleges and educational attainment focuses almost exclusively on credit-bearing programs, whether in the STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) fields, health NEW DIRECTIONS FOR INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH • DOI: 10.1002/ir


29

sciences, or community college to four-year transfer, with very little attention given to noncredit education (Grubb, 2002; Van Loo and Rocco, 2004). In fact, there is so much focus on the credit side that scholarly discourse, dialogue, and data efforts have largely ignored the other side of community colleges—namely, noncredit education. Noncredit studies, accessed by underserved students in adult basic education programs, high school dropouts in adult secondary education and GED programs, or displaced workers in short-term economic development and job skills retraining courses, may be among the most personally and economically impactful educational offerings community colleges offer, but their virtues remain uncelebrated for lack of good data, collected consistently from state to state. Standardization of noncredit data is imperative to facilitate serious inquiry. The data often available on noncredit courses includes student contact hours, but no indicator as to whether a student finished a particular course or program. Furthermore, basic demographic, socioeconomic, and other academic achievement data is often done haphazardly, making rigorous research and the development of foundational knowledge of noncredit programs extremely challenging. The time and effort community colleges must expend to address accountability concerns on the credit side likely contributes to data deficiencies in noncredit education. Transient students and students who stop out after taking classes they need instead of finishing a credential make it difficult for community colleges to demonstrate high graduation rates and robust credential attainments. Consequently, institutional researchers, community college scholars, and educational foundations focus their efforts on credit-bearing programs to justify the community college mission in the midst of demands that academic achievement be measured in terms of graduates and credentials issued. To make matters more challenging for scholarship on noncredit education, foundations and government entities supporting educational research have limited their funding to research on for-credit programs. Ameliorating the imbalance in data available on noncredit education in community colleges requires not only more data collection but also more interaction between for-credit programs and noncredit programs. Currently, the two sides appear to function in isolation, but there may be more interaction occurring between credit and noncredit education in practice. We have provided Iowa’s noncredit GED preparation program as an example of noncredit education acting as a feeder for credit-bearing programs. Were it not for the competencies gained in noncredit GED preparation, those students who successfully earned a high school equivalency credential would not have had the opportunity. While it is likely that significant interaction occurs between some noncredit and for-credit programs such as those associated with computer and information science, nursing, or business administration, the lack of data makes knowledge of the extent of these interactions unknown. Tracking students between NEW DIRECTIONS FOR INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH • DOI: 10.1002/ir

30


noncredit and credit-bearing programs remains burdensome at best, and without action the value added by noncredit programs to students’ experiences and their quality of life would remain a matter of conjecture. References Allen, C. A., and Jones, E. V. (eds.). GED Testing Program: The First Fifty Years. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1992. American Association of Community Colleges. “2011 Community College Fast Facts.” 2011. Retrieved August 5, 2001, from www.aacc.nche.edu/AboutCC/Documents/ FactSheet2011.pdf. Bailey, T. R., and Morest, V. S. The Organizational Efficiency of Multiple Missions for Community Colleges. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University, 2004. Breneman, D. W., and Nelson, S. C. Financing Community Colleges: An Economic Perspective. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 1981. Calcagno, J. C., Crosta, P., Bailey, T., and Jenkins, D. “Stepping Stones to a Degree: The Impact of Enrollment Pathways and Milestones on Community College Student Outcomes.” Research in Higher Education, 2007, 487, 775–801. Cohen, A. M., and Brawer, F. B. The American Community College. (5th ed.) San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2008. Dougherty, K. J., and Townsend, B. K. “Community College Missions: A Theoretical and Historical Perspective.” In B. K. Townsend and K. J. Dougherty (eds.), New Directions for Community Colleges, no. 136. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2006. Economic Opportunity Act of 1964. Pub. L. No. 88–452. Ezzelle, C., and Setzer, J. C. Technical Manual: 2002 Series GED Tests. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 2009. GED Testing Service. 2007 GED Testing Program Statistical Report. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 2008. Ginzberg, E., and Bray, D. W. The Uneducated. New York: Columbia University Press, 1953. Grubb, W. N. “Learning and Earning in the Middle, Part I: National Studies of PreBaccalaureate Education.” Economics of Education Review, 2002, 21, 299–321. Grubb, W. N., Badway, N., and Bell, D. “Community College and the Equity Agenda: The Potential of Noncredit Education.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 2003, 586, 218–240. Houle, C. O., Burr, E. W., Hamilton, T. H., and Yale, J. R. The Armed Services and Adult Education. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1947. Iowa Department of Education. The Annual Condition of Iowa’s Community Colleges 2008. Des Moines: Iowa Department of Education, 2009a. Iowa Department of Education. Iowa’s Community College Adult Literacy Annual Report: Executive Summary. Des Moines: Iowa Department of Education, 2009b. Iowa Department of Education. “Adult Literacy.” 2010a. Retrieved September 30, 2010, from www.iowa.gov/educate/index.php?option=com_contentandview=articlea ndid=1245andItemid=2131. Iowa Department of Education. The Annual Condition of Iowa’s Community Colleges 2009: With a Special Supplement on Workforce Outcomes. Des Moines: Iowa Department of Education, 2010b. Iowa Department of Education. “General Educational Development.” 2010c. Retrieved September 23, 2010, from www.iowa.gov/educate/index.php?option=com_contenta ndview=articleandid=268:gedandcatid=182:adult-literacyandItemid=1419. Jacobs, J., and Dougherty, K. J. “The Uncertain Future of the Community College Workforce Development Mission.” In B. K. Townsend and K. J. Dougherty (eds.), New Directions for Community Colleges, no. 136. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2006. NEW DIRECTIONS FOR INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH • DOI: 10.1002/ir


31

Labaree, D. F. How to Succeed in School Without Really Learning: The Credentials Race in American Education. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1997. LaGuardia Community College. “What Are LaGuardia’s Achieving the Dream Goals?” 2011. Retrieved August 5, 2011, from www.lagcc.cuny.edu/atd/content.aspx?id= 12884902012 McDonough, T., and Gaber, A. “ACE and Pearson Collaborate to Transform GED Test, Aligned with Common Core State Standards, Based on 21st Century Initiative.” American Council on Education. Retrieved March 22, 2011, from www.acenet.edu/ AM/Template.cfm?Section=Press_Releases2andTEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay. cfmandCONTENTID=40286. National Center for Education Statistics. “Features of Occupational Programs at the Secondary and Postsecondary Levels.” Washington, D.C., 2001-018. Oudenhoven, B. “Remediation at the Community College: Pressing Issues, Uncertain Solutions.” In T. H. Bers and H. D. Calhoun (eds.), New Directions for Community Colleges, no. 117. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2002. Phillippe, K. A., and L. G. Sullivan. National Profile of Community Colleges: Trends and Statistics. Washington, D.C.: American Association of Community Colleges, 2005. Quinn, L. M. An Institutional History of the GED. Milwaukee: University of WisconsinMilwaukee Employment and Training Institute, 2002, 82. Ratcliff, J. L. “Seven Streams in the Historical Development of the Modern American Community College.” In G. A. Baker, III (ed.), A Handbook on the Community College in America. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1994, 3–16. Robinson, S. E. “Analysis of the General Educational Development Testing Program.” Presented at the International Seminar on Assessment in Adult Education, Santiago, Chile, 2008. Ryder, A. J. “From Dropout to Degree: The GED Pathway to and Through Iowa Community Colleges.” Dissertation, Iowa State University, forthcoming. Strehlow, L. H. History of the Army General Educational Development Program: Origin, Significance, and Implications. Washington, D.C.: George Washington University, 1967. Tyler, J. H. “The General Educational Development (GED) Credential: History, Current Research, and Directions for Policy and Practice.” In J. Cornings, B. Garner, and C. Smith (eds.), Review of Adult Learning and Literacy. Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum, 2005, 45–83. Van Loo, J. B., and Rocco, T. S. Continuing Professional Education and Human Capital Theory. Maastricht, The Netherlands: Maastricht University, 2004.

ANDREW J. RYDER is a doctoral candidate in the Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies and a research and evaluation scientist in the Research Institute for Studies in Education at Iowa State University. LINDA SERRA HAGEDORN is the associate dean of the College of Human Sciences and professor in the Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies at Iowa State University. NEW DIRECTIONS FOR INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH • DOI: 10.1002/ir