Collaboration is key in the information age.

Community colleges will face a host of difficult challenges in the coming decade. That's not news. Higher education executives, policy-makers, planners and analysts will tackle the challenges by contemplating a variety of strategic, problem-solving models--also, not news. The news is that the most important process on the horizon will occur when the stakeholders who are gearing up for the decade following the upcoming reauthorization of the Higher Education Act transform their ideas about remote collaboration, leadership, deliberate partnerships and strategic planning into attainable objectives and concrete actions.

Growth, change and limited resources certainly will continue to challenge community colleges into the next decade. But resolving these challenges will require fresh approaches and highly coordinated solutions, primarily because the challenges stem from a broad range of external factors and constituencies. So while recent literature has focused on how presidential leadership shapes institutional success, no one person or institution can overcome these challenges alone--collaboration will be essential.

Fortunately, community colleges are highly adaptable institutions that have traditionally performed multiple functions and missions. Nevertheless, as the needs of various constituencies and stakeholders continue to grow, pressures on community colleges will increase. For example, students want more sophisticated and marketable degree programs. They also want more vocational education, more developmental education and bachelor's-degree programs. The business community wants specific course offerings and specific career tracks to revitalize the work force. Local communities need the health and welfare services that many community colleges provide. Meanwhile, legislators want more accountability, less duplication and more responsible budget management.

While all those demands are emanating from the local and regional levels, federal activity will be driving other pressures. For instance, the new Pell Grant formula threatens community-college budgets. Approved last year and made effective this January, families applying for the Pell Grant will have less opportunity to deduct from their expected contribution amount. Consequently, fewer families will qualify, and ultimately more students will not receive, the Pell Grants they need. As a result, those students will not enroll in the institutions they would have attended, and those institutions will lose federal aid dollars and student enrollments. Thus, even the institutions that have weathered recent rounds of state budget tightening probably will experience lost revenue as Pell Grant eligibility changes take full effect.

Since these are local, regional and federal sources of pressure that operate outside the control of any particular institution, resolution will require considerable collaboration. One important strategy will be for people from all levels to work on behalf of community colleges. Congress can address Pell Grant eligibility, members of state governments have the ability to either work with Congress or temper their demands, and local governments can assist institutions in economic forecasting.

The challenges created by ever-increasing demands from a growing constituency can rapidly escalate into a bigger problem. For example, when community colleges are prompted to offer bachelor's-level programs by student or business demand, or are mandated to provide advanced degrees by state legislatures, the competition between two- and four-year institutions for students and resources can become intense. The Arizona Legislature recently rejected efforts to allow community colleges to offer targeted bachelor's-degree programs, despite appeals from prospective employers and frustrated students. Georgia and Florida community colleges stir controversy with each bachelor's degree they offer. The issues that fuel these conflicts include mission creep, competition for limited resources and duplication of effort.

To find solutions for these concerns, higher education commissions and other state leaders will need to convene across the different sectors to build a consensus. Either the institutions can come to a specific agreement about their individual missions, or at the very least they can reach a mutual understanding about the pressures each is facing. If the most that can be gained through dialogue is mutual understanding, perhaps that will be enough to discourage the institutions from working against each other.

Some solutions will require coordinating various actors in different venues, while others will require direct leadership and still others will require specific partnerships. Facilitating student transfers, for example, requires specialized types of partnerships. And, striking a balance in curricular standards between institutions or sectors, easing the process of credit transfer and providing information to students can be accomplished only when institutions craft detailed agreements with each other.

Some institutions have a long history of engaging in such partnerships through articulation agreements. Some partnerships have resulted from informal agreements between two complementary institutions. One example of a more comprehensive partnership is represented by initiatives such as the National Articulation and Transfer Network formed by the City Colleges of San Francisco and several national organizations. Participating institutions sign articulation agreements that reflect negotiations between faculty, administrators and presidents who realize that the greater goal of serving students can be achieved collectively. The network also facilitates important related functions, including credit transfer, a research agenda and student counseling.

Another ongoing partnership is the Alliance for Equity in Higher Education, established in 1999 by the American Indian Higher Education Consortium, the Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities and the National Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education. The Alliance focuses on the issues relevant to minority-serving institutions (MSIs).

The Alliance initially provided a vehicle through which the organizations could collaborate to forge federal funding requests for Higher Education Act Title III and V programs. It has since evolved to provide the leadership needed to bring together CEOs, program managers, congressional associates, MSI presidents and other Alliance organizational staff to develop a range of policy-oriented and program objectives. Historically black colleges and universities are the subject of much of the discourse these days, as Alliance members discuss how these institutions, which have served primarily black students, will navigate the change as they also become Hispanic-serving institutions. Colleges such as Broward Community College in Florida, Olive Harvey College in Illinois and Union County College in California traditionally have maintained a substantial black enrollment, but are also serving a sizeable Latino population that could qualify the schools as Hispanic-serving institutions. Another issue on the Alliance agenda deals with ways to ensure that tribal colleges and universities are not left behind as other minority-serving institutions begin to participate in online scientific collaboration.

Mutual and thorough understanding of the challenges generated by issues such as these can only be achieved when communities continue to come together, exchange information and advocate for one another. The Alliance's Kellogg MSI Leadership Fellows Program actualizes the Alliance's vision by training administrators to become the next generation of MSI presidents. The knowledge these administrators gain prepares them to advocate for their institutions and for their counterparts in other communities. And, as the Fellows move into presidential positions, the institutions they lead should also reflect this inclusive vision and collaborative leadership style.

The post-reauthorization decade brings not only challenges but bold opportunities for those of us in higher education to reach beyond competition, budget cuts and rising tuitions, and reclaim the good will and confidence of the public. There is a place for each of us willing to solve these challenges. We have found that to champion the students served by community colleges and minority-serving institutions, we must move beyond hollow jargon to a deep commitment to access and success in all sectors of higher education.