While we are still months away from formulating the TCCTA legislative program for 2009, below are some points our association makes when discussing performance funding with public officials. You may find them useful in communicating with lawmakers while they are "at home" in the districts, especially when they are campaigning. As reported earlier, Commissioner of Higher Education Raymund Paredes and the Coordinating Board have recommended that the funding formula be changed to reward student "completers" rather than enrollees.
You are also encouraged to consult the Guide to Political Participation for useful strategies.
IMPORTANT: Do not use college equipment, e-mail addresses, or stationery when communicating with state policy makers. Also, it is important to always be constructive when communicating with public officials. Be sure to thank them for their hard work on behalf of the people of Texas.
Performance Funding “Talking Points”
TCCTA welcomes all valid documentation of community and technical college “accountability,” such as the measures reported under current law to the Coordinating Board.The complete mission of community colleges in workforce education should be funded without penalty. Students often take such courses with no intention of certification or graduation.
Community colleges are held account-able by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, the regional accrediting agency for professional standards. Faculty in many workforce disciplines must re-port to accrediting agencies at the state or national level. Colleges are also accountable to local taxpayers through policies enacted by elected trustees. Faculty members are evalu-ated routinely by college administrators under local board policies. Student evalua-tions are typically part of this process.
No one wants students to succeed academically more than faculty. The Coordinating Board’s proposal to reward completers assumes that a new funding mechanism will create a novel motivation. We see no empirical evidence to suggest such a correlation. If the state wishes to undertake such a drastic course, it should do so carefully and with ample opportunity for students, faculty, and others to provide insights about the impact it will have.
We are deeply concerned about academic integrity and grade inflation. While we are aware that a student would not have to pass a given course to count as a completer, the logic of the Coordinating Board’s model would create a culture that rewards staying in school above all other options. Retention of students would increasingly become the paramount criterion for faculty evaluation.
The Coordinating Board’s incentive funding proposal could place the interests of students at odds with the interests of institutions. We believe a student should never be advised to take any course of action because of the way the college receives its appropriation. After an “F,” it is particularly hard to convince a student to persist. Many will simply disappear. Is this any way to Close the Gaps?
There are times when advising a student to stay in class would be unethical, since a failing grade often closes the door on a fresh start later. These decisions are highly personal and complex and should not be subjected to a simplistic remedy.
[Here are the Talking Points on "Proportionality" regarding health benefits funding. TCCTA plans to assemble an online "library" of such resources leading up to the January Regular Session.]
Comments