“There’s So Much That We’re Doing”: How Florida College System Institutions Address Basic Needs Insecurity Among Students

Research Question: A sizable portion of college students experience food and housing insecurity, which poses a roadblock to fully and successfully engaging in higher education. In light of these complex challenges, we ask: How do Florida College System (FCS) institutions meet the basic needs of their students? Methods: To answer the question at hand, we conducted an embedded single case study of the FCS. Between 2014 and 2019, researchers traveled to 21 Florida colleges on one or more occasions to speak with college presidents, administrators, faculty members, advisors, academic support staff, and students. In total, we gathered data from 1,379 people through 213 focus group sessions and 20 individual interviews. Results: From these data emerged evidence of the extensive services and support programs provided by FCS institutions, ranging from food and housing assistance to clothing, transportation, and childcare. Such initiatives aim to meet the chronic, daily needs of students and their families, as well as acute needs that arise out of local disasters and crises. Contributions: The findings of this study contribute to the literature on the mission of community colleges. While these support programs address needs traditionally considered non-academic, participants suggest that they are essential to fostering student success. By meeting students’ physiological and safety needs, institutions can better accomplish their academic goals of remediation, transfer, vocational training, and contract education, particularly among students who have been traditionally excluded from higher education. The findings also highlight the importance of acknowledging the needs of students’ families when providing support.

From Democratic to “Need to Know”: Linking Distributed Leadership to Data Cultures in the Florida College System

This multiple case study examines the extent and ways in which leaders and administrators in Florida College System (FCS) institutions engage in distributed leadership through data sharing with frontline staff. Based on focus groups and individual interviews with administrators, faculty, and staff (659 participants) from 21 state colleges, we found a continuum of three data cultures ranging from democratic data cultures to blended data cultures to “need to know” data cultures. We triangulate these results with survey data from FCS institutional leaders and find considerable variation in the extent of data sharing and perceptions of effectiveness of institutional data use. Institutions with democratic data cultures tended to have distributed leadership that encouraged information sharing and collaboration among staff to use data to inform change. Need-to-know institutions faced challenges, including weak data quality, concerns about adequate time and resources among staff for reviewing data, and perceptions that staff lack data literacy skills.

Equality, Efficiency, and Developmental Education Reform: The Impact of SB 1720 on the Mission of the Florida College System

Objective: Community colleges have long made higher education more accessible to students from diverse academic backgrounds, particularly those who are academically underprepared and require remediation. In light of developmental education (DE) reform, our article answers the following questions: How do campus personnel articulate the unique mission of Florida’s state colleges, formerly known as community colleges? Furthermore, how do they perceive the mandates of reform to have shaped their ability to carry out this mission? Method: This work is based on an embedded case study of 10 Florida College System institutions. Qualitative data were gathered between 2014 and 2018 from 544 college presidents, administrators, faculty, staff through 92 focus groups and 8 interviews. Results: Campus personnel strongly affirmed the mission of the Florida Colleges System as one of democratic equality. However, many were concerned that DE reform, namely Senate Bill 1720, prioritized efficiency over equality in the pursuit of cost savings. Specifically, participants expressed frustration that reforms accelerated DE coursework to an unmanageable pace and ignored the presence of a digital divide. Opinions of DE reform improved in the 4 years following implementation, but some concern persisted. Contributions: Our findings highlight the centrality of democratic equality to the community college mission for campus personnel. They also suggest that equality and efficiency need not always be opposing goals in education reform. Finally, they call into question social policy that universally promotes accelerated and computer-based courses without considering that some students may require accommodations.