Notes on the Complete College America Conference

Having returned to the community college world after a two-year sojourn, I wasn’t sure what to expect at my first large-scale higher ed–themed conference. That was especially true given that the conference in question, Complete College America’s Next, was new to me and included both two-year and four-year schools. It was in Baltimore, so it wasn’t a rough drive.

It was gratifying to see that I hadn’t been entirely forgotten. Thanks to everyone who took a moment to yell “Matt!” from behind as I wandered the hallways. I needed that.

I attended as part of a delegation from Westmoreland, which is in its second year with CCA. In that role, I tried to glean whatever insights I could to bring back to campus. Some highlights:

• At a panel on using course scheduling as a retention tool, I came away with one insight, one statistic and one phrase. The insight was that schedule optimization works best at scale; the smaller the scale, the less room to move. That’s especially true at multicampus or multilocation institutions. As the rep from Ad Astra put it, “It’s not helpful to offer things partway.”

That’s a real challenge when you’re trying to be within driving distance of a lot of people in a sparsely populated area. The statistic was that the major jump in retention occurs among students who take at least 18 credits per year. Lower than that and retention drops precipitously; higher than that and the gains are incremental. Eighteen seems to be the magic number. Finally, someone (my notes fail me) termed some students whose courses were at inaccessible times or locations “unintentionally part-time.” I think the same could be said of many workers; there’s something there.

• A panel on the impact of academic policies on student retention brought home to me how much context matters. The presenters, Daphne Holland and Debbie Connor, were both from Coastal Carolina University. As they tell it, CCU is a four-year public institution that’s mostly residential, rapidly growing and chock-full of full-time, out-of-state students. I stayed anyway, on the theory that students are students and the struggles are largely the same everywhere.

And that seemed true at first; they mentioned that the most common reason for students leaving is finances. From there, they outlined changes to their academic probation policy, including an intermediate status called “academic advisory” for students who are passing, but not by much. (Students on advisory are required to check in with success coaches a few times per semester.) When I asked how changes to an academic policy would affect finances, they responded that the finances in question were HOPE scholarships that would be lost below a certain GPA. Alas, though interesting, it wasn’t as relevant to my world as I had hoped.

• Naturally, I attended the panel on higher ed reporters. That one was more of a personal interest. It was great to finally meet Scott Carlson from The Chronicle and Johanna Alonso from IHE. I hadn’t known of Kirk Carapezza, who hosts the College Uncovered podcast, but immediately added it to my podcast feed.

• Chike Aguh gave the afternoon keynote, focusing on higher ed and the future of work. The talk was largely about AI and the need to prepare students for the world as it’s taking shape. (The theme of “AI is changing everything, get over it” pervaded the conference—AI skepticism was regarded as passé, if not self-indulgent.)

He noted that in America, “we treat college like marriage,” acting as if the initial choice is irrevocable and life-determining. That’s not true in the community college world, but I have seen 17-year-olds look at a college decision that way. Instead, he proposed a “war college of technology,” in which professionals would take an education break every five years or so to get up to speed on the latest technology. Politically, I suspect that’s dead on arrival, but a version of that could be a useful way to package continuing ed.

• I was much more engaged by the panel on Scalable Student Success Strategies in a Shifting Political Landscape. Carrie Hodge, from CCA, and Julia Raufman, from the Community College Research Center, led a delicate but necessary discussion on ways to improve student success when certain words, resources and tactics have been ruled out of bounds by the current political climate. I’ll respect the sensitivity of the discussion by leaving it at that, other than to thank Hodge and Raufman for a badly needed conversation.
• Finally, the panel on workforce pathways in Texas had a similar alternate-universe feel to the earlier CCU panel. In the case of Texas, Daniel Perez and Shawnda Floyd reported that the performance funding system to which community colleges are subjected is not zero-sum. In other words, if everybody does better, everybody gets more funding. The colleges aren’t competing with each other, so they don’t have to divert resources to competing with each other.

You could hear gasps in the room, including my own. Floyd, from Dallas College, reported that they use philanthropic funding to cover the cost of tests for industry certifications for both students and instructors, which struck me as an excellent idea. In response to a question about reducing the benefits of higher education to income, Perez agreed that they go far beyond that but cautioned against “going down the rabbit hole of positive externalities” with legislators. In the short term, he’s obviously right about that, but it’s still disheartening.

Of course, as with many conferences, many of the highlights came from hallway conversations. Reconnecting with old friends and former colleagues is good for the soul.

Even when my immediate reaction to hearing about programs in some places was a variation on “must be nice …” it’s still useful to be reminded that some of the dilemmas we face aren’t inevitable. If 2025 has taught us anything, it’s that the old adage about change happening first slowly and then all at once is true. The key is to push the change in the right direction. Kudos to CCA for doing exactly that.