TCCTA Blog

Shooting Underscores Need for Plan

Statistically speaking, a college campus is among the safest places one can be. Nevertheless, with an outbreak of violence, such as the one that occurred recently on the campus of UT-Austin, many educators ask, "Could it happen here?" The answer is yes, of course, and community colleges are hardly immune.

Media coverage in the wake of the UT tragedy, which resulted in a suicide but no other casualties, stresses the importance of having a plan for such contingencies. A common thread in college preparedness, based on various reports, is getting the word out about a campus "lock down."

It's clear the cell phone is the way to do it.

At UT, students were alerted within seconds (which argues against insisting that they turn the devices off rather than merely silencing them during class). A lock down also entails keeping students in the classrooms whenever possible until the danger passes, perhaps even locking the door and turning out the lights.

These are strategies best handled by experts. The point is to make sure your school has a plan.

Not surprisingly, during this political campaign season, the Texas prohibition of guns on campus has arisen again as an issue. It's safe to predict that bills will be introduced to allow licensed carriers of concealed weapons on campus. One such measure got close to passage in 2009. Some people think such individuals could shoot a shooter before the person can inflict damage. Others worry about the presence of any guns on campus.

Here are two articles, both in the Dallas Morning News. One is a nice analyisis of the UT shooting by Erin Mulvaney. The other is a discussion of the political issues associated with it, by Robert T. Garrett.

Accountability Gets Expensive

Reports persist from around the state that the current emphasis on accountability in higher education comes at a cost. Generally educators never object when policy makers declare that decisions should be "data-driven" instead of based on hunches or anecdotes. However, the issue of "who pays?" arises inevitably and increasingly.

Although accountability can certainly be distinct from mere cost-cutting, the two goals are often related. And it is difficult to ignore the irony in spending more money to achieve more efficiency. (Not that it's unprecedented. Reportedly, back in the 70s, during the Carter Administration, a government commission that had been established to streamline paperwork published a widely-distributed 300 page report.)

HB 2504, the controversial new statute mandating online publication of course and faculty information, included, at the time of passage, a Fiscal Note of zero—meaning an official estimate that no significant state revenue would be required for implementation. But colleges can hardly collect and assemble data using phantom campus personnel and resources. Real employees must do it. Capitol insiders and commentators routinely label this unfortunate phenomenon an "unfunded mandate." In fact there is often a certain fatalistic resignation about it.

A recent example of the added cost of tabulating and reporting new information is found in an article in the Texas Tribune by Reeve Hamilton. Most of the information in the piece will be old news to educators who are well-informed, but the article also contains the following passage:

Drew Scheberle, senior vice president of education and talent development at the Greater Austin Chamber of Commerce, says essential higher education data, aside from athletics, has never been readily available. Scheberle is one of the driving forces behind a unique annual progress report on Austin Community College — one pushed by the business community, with the school signing on reluctantly.

He contrasts the coordinating board’s model — simply making information available — with the way the Austin Community College Progress Report is handled, saying, “We actually push this out to the community. We’re actively trying to push a vision in concert with ACC.”

Even with the school on board to co-author the report, the partnership between ACC and the chamber has at times been tense. While the most recent progress report was wrapping up, ACC President Stephen Kinslow, noting his staff had spent 200 hours on the project, fired off a note to the leaders of the project task force arguing that the school “cannot justify the excessive amount of staff time and diversion of resources from other priorities.” He made a point of noting that the school was “not averse to being evaluated.”

Much of the impetus for new data collection and reporting comes not only from the Texas Legislature and Congress, but also private organizations. Assuming there is little relief from public agencies in the foreseeable future, could private groups help fund the reports that they have deemed worthy?

As noted in a previous post, TCCTA members are urged to send brief accounts of added costs that their schools have incurred to comply with new requirements. Send the information to snelson@tccta.org, or to the TCCTA state office. Your name and school will not be used without permission.

 

Short-Term Changes Recommended

The previous two posts have outlined proposals recommended by the Coordinating Board's Advisory Committee on Higher Education Cost Efficiencies, as presented to the Senate Committee on Higher Education last week. Many of these recommendations will require legislative action, and some may take years to get accomplished, even if the House and Senate are in full agreement.

However, the advisory panel also put forward some "Short Term Actions." Below is their list. As with many of the other proposals, it's unclear what the role of the Coordinating Board and Legislature will be in trying to put these plans into action. Also, some of them hardly seem like "short-term" changes.

Of particular note to community and technical college educators is a recommendation that ten percent of all credit hours be taught in off-campus settings. Also it's interesting that the group proposes a "single diagnostic assessment tool by both two-year and four-year institutions to determine college readiness and pinpoint areas of needed preparation." Those who remember the TASP program will find such language familiar.

Below is the panel's verbatim list of short-term recommendations.

The Committee recommends the following short-term actions:

1. Legislation should be enacted that mandates statewide articulation agreements. These agreements should cover both the 42 semester credit hour general education core and an additional 18 semester credit hours that fulfill requirements for a major. Such 60-hour transfer agreements should be developed (as a minimum) for those programs that constitute, collectively, 80 percent of the student transfer activity.

2. Require at least 10 percent of all credit hours produced by two-year colleges and four- year institutions be completed in ways not requiring on-campus instruction – for example, through advanced placement, dual credit, competency based assessments, internships, online learning, etc. This recommendation is made to both promote more efficient uses of existing campus resources and to ensure that students develop skills regarding new ways of learning they will need to be successful in the future.

3. Improve credit hours produced per full-time equivalent faculty member by 10 percent. This recommendation reflects the strong belief of the Committee that targets and benchmarks be established at the state level by THECB action, but that the means by which these goals are achieved must be left to decision makers at the campus level.

4. Clearly state expectations regarding college readiness through a set of readiness standards (which Texas has already put in place) and use of a single diagnostic assessment tool by both two-year and four-year institutions to determine college readiness and pinpoint areas of needed preparation (can be implemented through THECB rules).

5. Require students to have a degree plan no later than upon completion of 42 semester credit hours of coursework, and require them to meet with an advisor prior to enrolling in a course that is not included in their degree plan or when changing degree plans.

Programs Could Be Terminated

In the interest of efficiency during the current budget crisis, "up to 750" programs at colleges and universities could be subject to termination, according to the chair of the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board.

In testimony before the Senate Committee on Higher Education, on September 23, Fred. W. Heldenfels informed the panel that an advisory committee has created a tentative list of "low producing" academic programs that should be considered for elimination. In the course of the committee's research, the witness stated, the group discovered duplicative curricula around the state. Other programs ripe for elimination were chosen because of low enrollments.

Obviously this raises many questions. The "which" and "where" queries may have to wait for now. Here's a link to the Draft Report of the Advisory Committee on Higher Education Cost Efficiencies (scroll down toward the bottom of the page to access the document). It's unclear when a precise list of programs in jeopardy will be revealed, and how the Coordinating Board will handle these recommendations.

Here's a list of the members of the Advisory Committee on Cost Efficiencies.

Low enrollments alone may not be enough to justify termination, however. As an example, Commissioner of HIgher Education Raymund Paredes commented that at least one graduate program in the classics should be available in Texas, even when total enrollment is low, because of "its importance in the development of Western civilization." (It will be interesting to see how the Coordinating Board would determine which school would retain such a program—and which universities would lose theirs.)

So far, most prospective streamlining seems directed at universities, especially graduate programs with few students. However, many community colleges offer programs with anemic enrollments, and schools struggle each year to maintain them. This is often especially the case with work force development programs, which can change quickly due to unforeseen economic developments in the community.

Mr. Heldenfels stated that a report due November 1 will contain an estimate based on a number of factors, especially perceived duplication of coursework and low enrollment. The staff of the Coordinating Board will subsequently scrutinize the recommendations prior to a Board presentation. The first annual Board report identifying these programs will be developed by February 2011.

Chairing the Senate committee is Sen. Judith Zaffirini (D-Laredo), who, along with Sen. Royce West (D-Dallas) asked witnesses pointedly whether the Coordinating Board possesses sole authority to terminate such programs without legislative consultation. Mr. Heldenfels stated that the Board did indeed have this authority, as he understood it. (Based on the ensuing conversation, it also remains somewhat unclear whether the proposed list of "up to 750" consists of individual courses, or entire programs of study.)

Sen. West told the witness, "We want to participate in this process."

Sen. Zaffirlni added, "You will definitely hear from local senators and representatives."

Commissioner Paredes responded, "We would expect that."

For more information on the Senate hearing, which dealt with a plethora of issues, please see this earlier post. Subsequent installments will cover more subjects in detail.

Here's an interesting passage from the draft report of the advisory committee's recommendations (see the above link):

Require institutions to close down degree programs which are low-producing. Current THECB rules establish procedures for the annual review by THECB staff of the number of graduates produced by degree programs to determine which are low-producing. Revised rules now raise the program completion thresholds for productive programs, establish consequences for low-producing programs, change the review cycle from three to five years, incorporate notification of low-producing programs at the third and fourth year, and clarify the exemption and consequence process. The first annual THECB report identifying these programs will be developed by February 2011.

From an accompanying document called "Impact Estimates:"

When a program is dropped, potential savings will be derived primarily from changes in student behavior and reduced faculty needs. Students can do one of three things: continue in a closely related field, transfer to another field/institution, or drop out. For the purposes of this analysis, we are assuming that students continue in a closely related field, the cost of which is approximately the same as the program that is dropped. There are no cost-savings, therefore, due to student response to the dropped program.

The cost-savings, then, will be based upon reduced faculty. When a program is dropped, there will be a range of actions that departments take. On the most conservative side, they will not hire additional faculty and re-assign existing faculty, resulting in no savings. Other departments will re-assign or actually let faculty go.

There is not a reliable way to estimate the number of faculty that are attached to a low-producing program, let alone anticipate how institutions will respond to a directive to drop a program. So, for each type of program (Level 1, 2, 3, and 4), we estimate the average number of reduced FTE faculty statewide as the product of the total number of low-producing programs and the statewide average number of reduced FTEs ranging from .25 to 1.5 FTEs in increments of .25. The cost savings are this product times the average salary of faculty for each level.

Senate Committee Examines Efficiencies

In its final official meeting of the interim, leading up to the Regular Session that convenes on January 11, the Senate Committee on Higher Education conducted an important hearing on "cost drivers" and efficiencies potentially affecting public colleges and universities in Texas.

In an extremely challenging budget year, short and long term alternatives were explored. Some proposals have dramatic implications for educators.

The panel is chaired by Sen. Judith Zaffirini (D-Laredo). The interim report is due December 1.

Invited witnesses included state officials and higher education policy specialists, with virtually all testimony directed toward legislative strategies for saving money. State budget writers predict an enormous shortfall for the next biennium, by some estimates as high as $21 billion.

Several proposals, such as incentive funding and rewarding college course "completers," have been reported here frequently. Other ideas brought before the panel, however, involve state quantification of "faculty productivity" and the possibility of eliminating "low producing" programs at institutions of higher education in Texas. (For background on "faculty productivity," please see this previous post.)

These latest developments will be treated more extensively here when a final report from a Coordinating Board advisory panel is made available. The report is due November 1, according to testimony from board chair Fred W. Heldenfels. The advisory group is the product of an Executive Order from Gov. Perry, charging the committee with exploring cost efficiencies in higher education.

For those who wish to examine underlying data, a good place to begin might be with the Delta Project, to which Commissioner of Higher Education Raymund Paredes referred during his opening remarks. The commissioner said that information utilized in agency testimony was provided by this non-profit organization, which lists the highly respected Lumina Foundation as a partner. Here's the link.

In testimony, Dr. Paredes reiterated his support for incentive funding, stating that the current model is unsustainable. He noted that we are spending more revenue with fewer results—a pattern harmful to the Closing the Gaps initiative and in staying competitive with other states and countries.

Expanding on an oft-repeated goal, the commissioner stressed the importance of achieving a higher level of college readiness, since students who are not prepared for college characteristically fail to succeed once they arrive on campus. He cited one report indicating that 80 percent of students who require remediation had a B average in high school.

Dr. Paredes anticipates that community colleges will continue to play an expanded role in absorbing the growth in enrollment, since two-year schools are less expensive for incoming students and better equipped to educate those who are unprepared. The commissioner observed that tuition at Texas community colleges remains well below the national average, but that family income in Texas is also very low. Hence shifting costs (a common strategy) to community college tuition would have negative policy consequences.

More issues related to the scope of the Senate hearing will be explored in subsequent posts.

Gaps Remain, Report Indicates

A new report from the Lumina Foundation, "A Stronger Nation Through Higher Education," shows that in 2007, 37.7 percent of Americans between the ages of 25 and 64 held a two or four year college degree. For 2008, the number is 37.9 percent. If the current rate of increase remains, less than 47 percent of Americans will hold a degree by 2025—a rate that economic experts say is "far below the level that can keep the nation competitive in the global, knowledge-based economy," according to a recent article in the Houston Chronicle.

The Stronger Nation report tracks progress toward Lumina's "Big Goal:" that 60 percent of Americans hold high-quality degrees by 2025. It measures progress at the national, state, and county levels, with individual profiles for all 50 states. Here's a link to the full report.

On the situation in Texas, here's a nice summary from the Chronicle piece:

About 33 percent of working-age Texans, defined as those between 25 and 64, had completed a two- or four-year degree in 2008, the latest year for which information is available. Only 10 states had lower rates; the national average is about 40 percent, and 18 states had rates higher than that.

Without significant change, the report predicts Texas will reach only 39 percent by 2025.

"As a state, we started well behind other states," said Higher Education Commissioner Raymund Paredes. "We have to reach the intermediate step before we have a shot at coming close to the goal of the Lumina Foundation."

No state is at 60 percent. Massachusetts is closest, at 49.6 percent.

Just 33 percent of Texans ages 25 to 64 have a college degree, below the national average of nearly 40 percent and far below the highest-achieving states.

A snapshot of other states:

• Arkansas: 26.5 percent
• California: 38.6 percent
• Colorado: 45.3 percent
• Illinois: 40.8 percent
• Louisiana: 27 percent
• Massachusetts: 49.6 percent
• Minnesota: 45 percent
• New York: 43.7 percent
• North Dakota: 45.2 percent
• Virginia: 43.4 percent
• West Virginia: 25.6 percent

 

TCCTA President Testifies

TCCTA president Fred Newbury, Richland College, testified before staff members of the Legislative Budget Board on Tuesday, September 21, on the subject of prospective appropriations for community and technical colleges for the next biennium. The hearing was a component of the budgetary process leading up to the Regular Session of the Legislature, which convenes in January.

After thanking the LBB panel for the opportunity to testify, Dr. Newbury commented on the current enrollment landscape at Texas community colleges, as schools contend with another surge in the population of students. To complicate matters, many newly enrolled individuals require additional resources such as remedial education. "Our mission is one we willingly assume," he noted. "We welcome all students." However, he added, "There are extra responsibilities because of the tremendous diversity of the student population."

Dr. Newbury offered to speak from his own perspective as an instructor. "At Richland College, every desk we have is in a classroom and all the classrooms are full."

One of the LBB panelists asked Dr. Newbury about the average teaching load at community colleges. The TCCTA leader responded that, while there is a great deal of variety at two-year schools, five to six classes per semester is probably the norm, but the number of students in each section depends upon classroom space. He was asked further if this teaching load was greater than what faculty members at four-year institutions typically assume. Dr. Newbury agreed this was certainly likely, but that schools vary in their  assignments and other institutional responsibilities.

Another staffer asked Dr. Newbury about the dramatic rise in the use of part-time faculty, referring to  studies indicating that students are more likely to succeed in courses taught by full-time instructors. Dr. Newbury responded that, at his institution, the surrounding community contains a talented pool of qualified adjunct instructors, many of whom bring valuable work and life experiences into the classroom. He added, however, that part-time teachers do not typically have the same office facilities as full-time teachers for individual consultation and counseling. Full-time instructors are also more likely to engage with students at campus meetings and other activities, he said.

Former TCCTA President Passes Away

Mike Looney, president of TCCTA from 1985-86, passed away on September 19 in San Antonio. During his career as an educator, he served as president of Pikeville College, provost at Schreiner University, and chemistry professor at San Antonio College. Dr. Looney was 64.

A life celebration will be held at 7:00 pm Wednesday, September 22, at Mission Park North in San Antonio. In lieu of flowers, the family suggests a gift to Schreiner University for undergraduate research.

Longtime association leaders and members will remember Mike with great fondness.

More information is available here.

White House Summit Announced

The first-ever White House Summit on Community Colleges will take place October 5, officials from the vice president's office announced recently.

The vice president's wife, Jill Biden, a community college instructor, will preside over the event.

President Obama previously announced that Ms. Biden would lead the summit last March, when he signed legislation overhauling the federal student-loan programs. The signing ceremony was held at Northern Virginia Community College, where Ms. Biden teaches. The president used the occasion to reaffirm the administration's commitment to two-year colleges, calling them "one of the great undervalued assets in our education system."

The summit will bring together community colleges, business officials, philanthropists, policy leaders, and students to discuss the role that two-year colleges play in developing America's work force and achieving the president's goal of leading the world by having the highest proportion of college graduates by 2020.

The above information is taken from the Chronicle of Higher Education.

The White House has set up a number of ways for the public to participate in the summit, which can be found online at http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/CommunityCollege. The White House especially wants to hear how students' lives have been transformed after attending a community college, according to the official announcement.

The Skipping Class Calculator

If your students need extra help in deciding whether to skip class on any given day, they may want to check out the new Skipping Class Calculator (instead of, you know, like, wasting time preparing for class). Here's the site.

It's kind of interesting, in a perverse way. Students are asked online to respond to a number of questions, such as:

• How many times a week do you have this class?
• About how many weeks are your semesters, minus finals week? (An extra week should also be subtracted to counter days off.)
• How many days have you already skipped?
• What is your current grade in the class? (Guess if needed)
• What is the date of your next major quiz or test?
• Will you have to take some kind of small, daily quiz?
• Does this class have some form of attendance policy?
• How much of the exam material do you feel comes from lectures only? (This excludes things like: the book, online material, notes posted online, etc.)
• How often does the instructor give important announcements regarding tests or papers which are not found on the syllabus or other handouts?
• How certain are you that you can get lecture notes and important announcements from someone else in the class before the next meeting?

After the questions have been answered, the Big Giant Calculator formulates a probabilistic recommendation on the statistical risk of skipping class that day.

A clever faculty member could do worse in crafting a diabolical counter-strategy—designed to increase the nasty consequences of missing class—than studying these questions carefully. There may be a message here.

Here are student reviews of the site:

"This is awesome!! Freaking made my day :)"
-Katie Pratt
Illinois State '10

"Epic!!!"
-Katie Burrows
Jacksonville University '13

"Best ever!"
-Victoria Lineberry
Old Dominion '12

"Epic" seems a little strong, Katie, but the irony is commendable.

Finally, the site has attracted several interesting advertisers, including the University of Phoenix and Western Governors University. Which may indicate that a deliberate marketing strategy is designed not merely for those who are too busy to attend classes, but also those who wish to escape consquences.