Table of Contents
The Revolving Door of Failure: A Counselor’s Crisis of Conscience
For over fifteen years, I’ve worked as a higher education advisor.
My office walls are covered with pennants from colleges across the country, tokens from a career dedicated to one thing: helping students find their future.
I’ve always believed in the transformative power of a college degree.
But for a long time, I carried a professional grief that I rarely spoke about.
It was the grief of watching the conventional wisdom fail, time and time again, for the students who needed it most.
The advice was always the same, a mantra repeated in every high school counseling office: “Start at community college, save money, then transfer.” It seemed so logical, so financially prudent.
And for some students, it works.
But for many of my brightest, most motivated, yet under-resourced students, this well-trodden path too often became a revolving door.
I think of “Maria”—not her real name, but her story is painfully real.
She was a first-generation student, sharp and full of a quiet, determined energy.
She had dreams of becoming a social worker.
We did everything by the book.
We filled out the FAFSA, navigated the local community college’s application, and mapped out her first two years of general education courses.
I shook her hand, told her how proud I was, and believed I had set her on a path to success.
Less than a year later, she was working full-time at a retail store, her college plans indefinitely on hold.
The story she told me was one I’d heard in different forms a dozen times before.
She was lost in lecture halls with hundreds of other students.
Her advisor was an overworked administrator she met with once.
She was working 30 hours a week to help her family and couldn’t find time for study groups or tutoring.
The small cracks in the plan—a difficult class, a schedule conflict, a transportation issue—widened into chasms until the entire foundation crumbled.
She didn’t fail because she wasn’t smart enough or because she didn’t have enough “grit.” She failed because she was placed in a system that was never designed for her to succeed.
Maria’s story was my breaking point.
It forced me to confront a deeply uncomfortable question.
What if the problem wasn’t the students? What if the system itself—the very advice I was paid to give—was the issue? This question became a quiet obsession, pushing me to look beyond the standard answers and search for an alternative for students who, like Maria, had all the potential in the world but were being let down by the very institutions meant to lift them up.
Cracking the Code: What “CTB” Actually Means in the World of College
My search began with a confusing acronym: “CTB.” It kept appearing in different educational contexts, but the meaning was a moving target.
For any student or parent trying to navigate the already dense thicket of higher education terminology, this kind of ambiguity is more than just an annoyance; it’s a barrier.
Before I could find a solution, I first had to map the territory and understand what “CTB college classes” actually referred to.
My investigation revealed four distinct, and completely unrelated, meanings.
Four Meanings of CTB: A Quick-Reference Guide
- 1. The Come to Believe (CTB) Network: This was the breakthrough. The Come to Believe Network is not a class, but an entire educational model. It establishes degree-granting, two-year colleges that are physically embedded within selective four-year universities. The model is specifically engineered to serve high-potential, low-income students, providing them with an associate degree and a clear, supported pathway to a bachelor’s degree.1 This innovative approach became the central focus of my research and the heart of this report.
- 2. California Training Benefits (CTB): This is a state-level financial support program in California. It allows individuals who are eligible for Unemployment Insurance benefits to attend school or training programs without being required to look for or accept work.3 While a student taking college classes might use this benefit, the program itself is not a type of college or a specific curriculum. It is a financial lifeline, not an academic institution.5
- 3. Critical Teaching Behaviors (CTB): This “CTB” has nothing to do with student programs. It is a pedagogical framework for educators and administrators in higher education. Developed by researchers Lauren Barbeau and Claudia Cornejo Happel, the CTB framework synthesizes research into six categories of evidence-based instructor behaviors that are proven to increase student learning and retention.6 It’s a tool for evaluating and improving the quality of teaching at the university level, not a program for students to enroll in.8
- 4. Community Tool Box (CTB): This refers to a specific training curriculum developed by the University of Kansas. It consists of sixteen modules designed to teach core skills for community work, such as assessing community needs, building coalitions, and advocating for change.10 While it can be used in college courses, it is a specific set of training materials for community development, not a general model for college education.
This initial phase of my search was illuminating.
The confusion around a single acronym highlighted a larger problem in education: a reliance on insider jargon that can inadvertently exclude the very families and students trying to find their way in.
My role, I realized, was to be a translator—to cut through the noise and provide a clear, unambiguous guide.
And in doing so, I had stumbled upon the one “CTB” that offered a real, structural answer to the question that haunted me.
The Epiphany: Discovering the Greenhouse in the Garden
The real turning point came at a national higher education conference.
I was sitting in the back of a cavernous ballroom, feeling deeply jaded, listening to yet another presentation on “increasing student grit.” It all felt so hollow, placing the burden of a broken system squarely on the shoulders of the students.
I slipped out and wandered into a smaller, less-crowded breakout session about something called Arrupe College at Loyola University Chicago.11
As the speaker, Fr. Steve Katsouros, described the program, the fog of my frustration began to lift.
He wasn’t talking about fixing students.
He was talking about changing their environment.
And as I listened, a powerful analogy took root in my mind, an idea that would completely reframe how I saw the problem of college access and success.
The Come to Believe model is like a high-tech, climate-controlled greenhouse built inside a prestigious botanical garden.
- The Botanical Garden represents the host institution—a selective, resource-rich four-year university like Loyola University Chicago or Butler University.12 It has the brand, the beautiful campus, the libraries, the reputation, and all the aspirational value that comes with it.
- The Open Field is the traditional community college system. It’s vast and essential, but for certain promising yet vulnerable “seedlings”—like my student Maria—it can be a harsh and unforgiving environment. They are planted alongside thousands of others with minimal individual support, exposed to the elements of large, impersonal classes, financial storms, and the weeds of administrative complexity. Many don’t survive.
- The Greenhouse is the CTB college itself. It’s a small, separate structure built right in the middle of the garden. Inside, every condition is perfectly calibrated to nurture those specific, high-potential seedlings. The temperature (support), the light (rigor), the soil (belonging), and the water (finances) are all precisely managed. It is a resource-rich, protective micro-environment designed not just for survival, but for vigorous growth. The goal is to nurture the seedlings until they are strong and resilient enough to be transplanted into the main garden, where they can flourish alongside plants that started with every advantage.
This analogy was my epiphany.
It shifted the entire focus from a “student deficit” model to an “environmental design” model.
The question was no longer, “What’s wrong with this student that they can’t succeed in the open field?” It was, “What is the optimal environment we can design to guarantee this student’s success?” The failure of students like Maria wasn’t a reflection of their lack of potential; it was a reflection of a fundamental design flaw in their educational ecosystem.
The CTB model wasn’t trying to create hardier seeds; it was building a better greenhouse.
The Architecture of the Greenhouse: A Deep Dive into the Come to Believe Model
Understanding this new paradigm, I began to dissect the architecture of the greenhouse.
I found that its success wasn’t based on a single innovation, but on a series of interconnected design principles, each one intentionally crafted to remove a known barrier to success for low-income, first-generation students.1
The Foundation: Radical Affordability (No Debt, No Distractions)
The first and most fundamental component of the CTB model is its approach to cost.
The model is designed to allow students to earn their associate degree with little to no debt.13
This is achieved through a strategic financial blend: the model maximizes federal and state aid, such as Pell Grants and state-specific grants, and then closes the remaining gap with proactive, targeted private fundraising.1
The outcome is revolutionary: at some CTB colleges, students can earn their associate’s degree with no out-of-pocket expenses and go on to earn a bachelor’s degree for under $10,000.13
Nationally, 90% of students in CTB colleges avoid taking out any loans at all.1
This financial structure is more than just an economic calculation; it’s a profound psychological intervention.
The constant, gnawing anxiety of “How will I pay for this?” is one of the single greatest burdens on low-income students.
It forces them into an impossible choice between earning and learning, often leading them to prioritize work hours over study hours.1
Furthermore, the sheer complexity of the financial aid process, with its labyrinthine forms and verification audits, can be an overwhelming administrative burden that causes students to give up before they even start.14
By creating a financial bubble of safety, the CTB model removes this cognitive load.
It liberates students from the identity of “worker” or “debtor” and allows them to fully inhabit the identity of “student.” This freedom to focus is the essential foundation upon which all the academic components are built.
The Framework: Academic Rigor (High Expectations, High Support)
With financial anxiety removed, students are free to engage with the core of the program: its academics.
A common, if paternalistic, approach for underserved students is to place them in remedial or less-demanding courses.
The CTB model does the exact opposite.
Its coursework is explicitly designed to be equivalent in rigor to the first two years at its selective host institution.1
One professor at Arrupe College noted that she teaches her students as if they were already in the main Loyola undergraduate programs across the street.15
This approach is rooted in the guiding principle of “Untapped Talent”—the belief that these students possess immense potential and can absolutely meet high standards if they are given the right support.1
It creates a powerful, positive self-fulfilling prophecy.
Research and experience show that when students are held to high expectations within a supportive structure, their belief in their own ability to succeed grows.16
By refusing to water down the curriculum, the institution sends an unambiguous message: “We believe you are capable of this work.
You belong here.” This belief is infectious, building the academic confidence and self-efficacy students need to rise to the challenge.
The Climate: A Culture of Belonging (The Cohort as Family)
One of the most powerful and consistently cited elements of the CTB model is its intentional cultivation of community.
Unlike the often vast and anonymous environment of a large community college, CTB programs are built on a small, cohort-based model where students move through their classes together.1
This instantly creates a network of peers who share a common experience and can provide mutual support.
The result is a culture that students, faculty, and staff repeatedly describe not with institutional jargon, but with words like “family,” “community,” and even “love”.11
Student testimonials are filled with stories of finding their best friends and forming deep relationships with professors who they can talk to about anything, not just school.11
This sense of belonging is a critical factor in student retention, especially for first-generation students who often struggle with “imposter syndrome” and a feeling that they don’t truly belong on a college campus.11
In the greenhouse analogy, this culture of belonging is the nutrient-rich soil.
It’s not a decorative feature; it is an essential ingredient for growth.
The model proves that for this student population, deep social and emotional integration is just as critical as academic instruction.
It provides the anchor that holds students steady when they face the inevitable storms of academic and personal life.
The Integrated Systems: Holistic, Wrap-Around Support (The “Reach-In” Culture)
While most universities have support services, they are often passive resources—an office you have to find, a form you have to fill out, a hotline you have to call.
The CTB model rejects this passive approach in favor of what Arrupe College Dean Fr. Thomas Neitzke calls a “reach-in culture”.15
The support is proactive, integrated, and holistic.
Every CTB college has a team of dedicated, full-time staff that includes academic advisors, career counselors, and licensed social workers.1
They recognize that non-academic barriers—like food insecurity, housing instability, or mental health challenges—are often the primary obstacles to academic success.15
To address this, many programs provide free breakfast and lunch, laptops, and transportation assistance.11
Crucially, these support staff don’t wait in their offices for students to come to them.
They are embedded in the daily life of the college, actively checking in on students, noticing when someone seems to be struggling, and intervening before a small problem becomes a full-blown crisis.20
This proactive network is the climate-control system of the greenhouse, constantly monitoring the environment and making adjustments to ensure every single plant has what it needs to thrive.
The Pathway Out: Seamless Transfer & Post-Grad Success (Backwards Planning)
The ultimate goal of the CTB model is not just an associate degree; it’s a bachelor’s degree and a meaningful career.
The entire program is “backwards planned with student success in mind”.1
This means the transfer process, often a treacherous and confusing maze for community college students, is built into the CTB model’s DNA from day one.
Because the CTB college is embedded within a four-year university, the pathway is clear.
The curriculum is already aligned, and formal articulation agreements ensure that credits transfer seamlessly.1
Dedicated staff provide intensive transfer counseling to help students navigate the application process not only to the host institution but to other four-year colleges as well.
The results of this intentional design are staggering.
Across the network, over 80% of CTB graduates continue on to pursue a bachelor’s degree.2
Compared to the national average, CTB students graduate at a rate 4-6 times higher than their peers at other two-year colleges.2
This well-lit, paved path out of the greenhouse and into the main garden is perhaps the model’s most significant departure from the conventional system, ensuring that the initial investment in student success pays off in the long R.N.
Real-World Blueprints: CTB Colleges in Action
This greenhouse model is not a theoretical ideal.
It is a proven, replicable system that is changing lives at universities across the United States.
The Pioneer: Arrupe College at Loyola University Chicago
The blueprint for the entire network was drawn at Arrupe College, which opened its doors on Loyola University Chicago’s campus in the fall of 2015.1
Arrupe was the proof-of-concept, demonstrating that this high-support, high-rigor model could achieve unprecedented results.
Its application process is holistic, looking beyond simple metrics to find students with drive and determination, including undocumented and DACA-eligible students who are often shut out of traditional financial aid pathways.21
The student experience at Arrupe validates every component of the model.
Graduates speak of a transformative journey where they found a supportive family, were challenged by caring professors, and were given the tools to overcome personal and academic obstacles.11
As one student speaker, Asya Meadows, powerfully stated at her graduation, the love she found wasn’t a person, “it’s people; It’s Arrupe”.17
This pioneering success created the momentum and the evidence base for the model to expand.
The Network Expands: Replicating the Blueprint
Following Arrupe’s success, the Come to Believe Network was formed to help other universities replicate the model.
Today, the network includes Dougherty Family College at the University of St. Thomas in Minnesota, Seton College at the College of Mount Saint Vincent in New York, and the newly announced Founder’s College at Butler University in Indiana, set to open in 2025.12
The partnership with Butler University provides a clear case study of how and why a selective university adopts this model.13
CTB looks for host institutions that have a mission aligned with social justice, a strong academic reputation, access to state-based financial aid, and a deep commitment from university leadership.12
The relationship is profoundly symbiotic.
The host university provides the “garden”—the brand prestige, the campus facilities, and the academic infrastructure.
In return, the CTB model provides the “greenhouse”—a turnkey solution that allows the university to meaningfully fulfill its social mission, create a pipeline of diverse and resilient talent, and address modern challenges like declining enrollment in certain demographics.1
It is a strategic partnership that allows the model to scale far more effectively than if it tried to build new institutions from the ground up.
A Nuanced Comparison: The Greenhouse vs. The Open Field
It is crucial to place the CTB model in the proper context.
Critics, notably from the Faculty Association of California Community Colleges (FACCC), have argued that comparing a small, selective program like a CTB college to the massive, open-access community college system is like “comparing apples to oranges”.23
This critique is valid and important.
Community colleges have a vast and fundamentally different mission.
They serve millions of students with a wide array of goals, from workforce training and lifelong learning to earning a few credits over the summer.
They are, by design, open to everyone.23
The CTB model, in contrast, is a highly specialized instrument designed for a very specific job: ensuring that high-potential students from low-income backgrounds, who enter college with the explicit goal of earning a bachelor’s degree, actually succeed.
The argument is not that the CTB model should replace community colleges.
Rather, its success illuminates a critical gap in the higher education ecosystem.
For the specific demographic it serves, the evidence suggests that the “greenhouse” environment is demonstrably more effective at getting them to their final destination.
The following table breaks down the key architectural differences between the two models.
Table 1: A Tale of Two Models: CTB Network vs. Traditional Community College
| Feature | The Come to Believe (CTB) Model | The Traditional Community College Model |
| Student Profile & Selectivity | Selective; targets high-potential, low-income, often first-generation students with the goal of earning a bachelor’s degree.1 | Open-access; serves a broad, diverse population with varied academic and career goals, from transfer to vocational training.23 |
| Environment & Culture | Small, cohort-based, intimate “family” feel; embedded within a 4-year university campus, granting access to its resources.1 | Large, often impersonal commuter feel; typically a standalone institution with its own distinct culture and resources.11 |
| Support Structure | Proactive, holistic, and mandatory “reach-in” wrap-around services, including social workers, intensive advising, and food programs.15 | Services are available but often reactive, requiring student initiative to access; support is often fragmented across different departments.11 |
| Financial Model | Designed for little-to-no student debt through a strategic blend of maximized public aid and targeted private fundraising.1 | Low tuition is the primary affordability mechanism; student loans are common, and navigating the financial aid system can be complex for students.14 |
| Academic Rigor & Focus | Curriculum is aligned with selective 4-year host institution standards; the focus is explicitly on preparing students for rigorous bachelor’s-level work.1 | Academic offerings vary widely, including developmental/remedial courses, vocational programs, and transfer-level courses to serve a broader mission.23 |
| Transfer Pathway & Outcome | Explicit, structured, and highly supported with articulation agreements built-in; leads to superior bachelor’s degree completion rates.1 | The transfer process can be complex and difficult to navigate, often resulting in credit loss; transfer success rates are highly variable across institutions and states.23 |
Conclusion: Cultivating a New Ecosystem for Student Success
My journey to understand the real meaning of “CTB” led me to a place I never expected.
It provided an answer to the crisis of conscience sparked by the story of Maria and so many students like her.
The Come to Believe Network proved that another way was possible.
I now think of a different kind of student story, a composite of the powerful testimonials I’ve read from Arrupe graduates.11
It’s the story of a student who, like Maria, is bright, motivated, and the first in their family to go to college.
But instead of being planted in the open field, they are welcomed into the greenhouse.
They are immediately surrounded by a cohort of peers who become family and by faculty who know their name and their story.
Their financial aid is handled, their laptop is provided, and their meals are covered, freeing them to focus on classes that are challenging but invigorating.
When they struggle with a concept, a peer tutor is there to help.
When a crisis hits at home, a social worker is there to listen.
After two years, they walk across a stage, diploma in hand and zero debt on their shoulders, and enroll as a junior at a top university, full of confidence and an unshakeable sense of belonging.
This isn’t a fantasy.
It is the replicable result of a better design.
The profound lesson of the Come to Believe Network is that we have been asking the wrong question.
For decades, the conversation has been dominated by the question, “Is this student college-ready?” The CTB model dares to ask a much more powerful question: “Is this college ready for this student?”
True educational equity is not about finding the hardiest seeds that can somehow survive in a barren field.
It’s about accepting our responsibility as educators and institutions to cultivate a rich, supportive, and diverse ecosystem of educational options.
It’s about building more greenhouses, tending to our soil, and ensuring that every student, regardless of the circumstances of their birth, has the environment they need to grow to their full potential.
Works cited
- The CTB Model – Come To Believe Network, accessed August 8, 2025, https://www.ctbnetwork.org/the-ctb-model
- Founder’s College | Butler University, accessed August 8, 2025, https://www.butler.edu/advancement/founders-college/
- California Training Benefits – EDD – CA.gov, accessed August 8, 2025, https://edd.ca.gov/en/unemployment/California_Training_Benefits/
- Eligible Training Types for California Training Benefits – EDD – CA.gov, accessed August 8, 2025, https://edd.ca.gov/en/unemployment/Eligible_Training_Types_for_CTB/
- Frequently Asked Questions – Cabrillo College, accessed August 8, 2025, https://www.cabrillo.edu/business/frequently-asked-questions/
- digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu, accessed August 8, 2025, https://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?filename=0&article=2621&context=sotlcommons&type=additional#:~:text=The%20Critical%20Teaching%20Behaviors%20(CTB,student%20learning%20gains%20and%20retention.
- About CTB – Critical Teaching Behaviors, accessed August 8, 2025, https://criticalteachingbehaviors.org/about-ctb
- Beyond the Checklist: What Does Good Teaching Look Like? | NEA, accessed August 8, 2025, https://www.nea.org/advocating-for-change/new-from-nea/beyond-checklist-what-does-good-teaching-look
- Critical Teaching Behaviors (CTB) Framework, accessed August 8, 2025, https://cetl.media.uconn.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/1775/2024/03/Barbeau-Happel-CTB-4_pages.pdf
- Training Curriculum | Community Tool Box, accessed August 8, 2025, https://ctb.ku.edu/en/training-curriculum
- Loyola’s Arrupe College graduates first class of students – Chicago Catholic, accessed August 8, 2025, https://www.chicagocatholic.com/chicagoland/-/article/2017/08/23/loyola-s-arrupe-college-graduates-first-class-of-students
- Host Institutions – Come To Believe Network, accessed August 8, 2025, https://www.ctbnetwork.org/hosts
- Butler University Creating Two-Year College to Increase Access and Degree Attainment for Underserved Students, accessed August 8, 2025, https://stories.butler.edu/butler-university-creating-two-year-college-to-increase-access-and-degree-attainment-for-underserved-students/
- Two Sides of the Coin – Come To Believe Network, accessed August 8, 2025, https://www.ctbnetwork.org/two-sides
- Arrupe College’s support system, accessed August 8, 2025, https://news.luc.edu/stories/student-success/arrupecollege/
- Through the Eyes of Students – Youngstown State University, accessed August 8, 2025, https://ysu.edu/sites/default/files/%282016%29%20Through%20the%20Eyes%20of%20Students%20TINTO.pdf
- Arrupe College: Greater Love than Fear – The Jesuit Post, accessed August 8, 2025, https://thejesuitpost.org/2017/08/arrupe-college-greater-love-than-fear/
- Loyola University Chicago Reviews – Niche, accessed August 8, 2025, https://www.niche.com/colleges/loyola-university-chicago/reviews/
- A good challenge in terribly challenging times – Come To Believe Network, accessed August 8, 2025, https://www.ctbnetwork.org/news/exciting-news-from-steve-katsouros-sj
- Community College as a Pathway to Academic Success for Latinx Students – UIC Indigo, accessed August 8, 2025, https://indigo.uic.edu/ndownloader/files/55442291
- Apply to Arrupe College | Arrupe: Loyola University Chicago, accessed August 8, 2025, https://www.luc.edu/arrupe/admission/
- High Schools and Arrupe: Loyola University Chicago: Features, accessed August 8, 2025, https://www.luc.edu/features/stories/chicago/highschoolsandarrupe/
- Four-Year Universities Offering Associate Degrees, accessed August 8, 2025, https://www.faccc.org/index.php?option=com_dailyplanetblog&view=entry&year=2023&month=08&day=28&id=22:four-year-universities-offering-associate-degrees
- Four-Year Institution vs. Community College: What’s the Difference?, accessed August 8, 2025, https://barrier-breakers.org/blog/four-year-institution-community-college-difference
- Cost of Community College vs. 4-Year Colleges: Real-World Examples, accessed August 8, 2025, https://www.collegetransitions.com/blog/cost-of-community-college-vs-four-year-real-world-examples/
- Best Online Community Colleges & Trade Schools: Guide to Online Programs for 2025, accessed August 8, 2025, https://research.com/universities-colleges/best-online-community-colleges-and-trade-schools
