Reports on education come and go, but this one will be a keeper. A new online publication highlights the current juggernaut of demands to improve the graduation rates of college and university students.
An organization called Complete College America published the dramatic compendium of statistics and commentary. The group has been cited here before, and its report will likely become the gold standard for policy makers. The presentation is graphic, easy to navigate, and compelling. It has the support of several highly prestigious national foundations. Lawmakers will eat it up, rightly or wrongly.
Here is the Texas Profile. It's not pretty, but contains no real surprises.
There will be much to say and perhaps criticize about the group's conclusions and recommendations in the months ahead, leading up to the next Regular Session. For now, the numbers seem consistent with what has been reported here and elsewhere. In terms of news, not so much.
First, let's clarify a small but significant item: The study examines, in part, "first-time, full-time" students for comparison. As all two-year college educators know, most of our students are part-timers. However, if we were to hypothetically include these students in the overall success numbers, the rates would be lower in terms of completion, for obvious reasons. In fact that's one of the overall points of the study, to its credit. So the important issue of the "value-added" education of a student who, say, takes one welding or English class, should probably be considered separately. But however we take it into account, a central dilemma remains, and should be faced.
From the perspective of community college teachers, there are many valuable observations in the report, but it also contains unfortunate phraseology and implications. Here are a few, admittedly selective:
- "Time is the enemy." Part of the report's message relates to the fact that, the longer students remain in school, the less likely they are to graduate. But the portentous statement also happens to be the title of the entire study. As such, it conveys crisis and urgency in fixing the overall situation. We all understand urgency, but broad social tasks take time. If experience has taught us anything, it's that cultural, economic, and societal transformation (and that's what is involved when it comes to first-generation students who are typically poor as well) will not be easy. The Closing the Gaps program began ten years ago—the blink of an eye in terms of such a monumental enterprise. These students deserve new and creative approaches, but the path is fraught with dead ends and snipe hunts without careful analyses of real results.
- "Remedial classes have become the Bermuda Triangle of higher education" (see page 13 here). So they should be avoided altogether? That seems to be the message. See a previous post for background on such a point of view. This conversation is real, strangely enough. (All statistical evidence to the contrary from those in the field should be added to the discussion. Inspiring anecdotes won't do anymore.)
- In the recommendations, the report says states must "give [the taxpayers] more graduates." Education is a gift? Bad term. Even though the giving in this case goes to taxpayers and not students, it can't be helpful. Besides, taxpayers want graduates who can think, deduce, imagine, analyze, and perform with precision, discipline, and competence—not just diplomas. What's the typical college teacher grading papers right now supposed to conclude from reading about the "gift"? Furthermore, shouldn't high standards and intellectual challenge be a significant component of the call to action? Frankly, one reason so many high school graduates can't perform in college is because of demoralizing, arbitrary, and intimidating directives on grading, targeted at public school teachers from above. That's what teachers say when you ask. College instructors, as a rule, worry that we are going down the same path.
As pointed out here many times, contemporary "success" measurements are a function (as they put it statistically) of selectivity. Check out the numbers on universities. Non-selective schools, to put it bluntly, don't do well by this standard. It is also a function of college readiness. Texas is, quite simply, bad at producing college-ready graduates, compared to most other states. There are valid reasons for this, of course—not to mention the sundry points of view on what readiness means.
All TCCTA members are urged to examine the entire report carefully. And keep in mind that Texas is poised to formulate a plan to reward schools financially for producing (or "giving") more graduates.
Comments