TCCTA Blog

Legislators Consider Allowing Guns on Campus

As it stands now under Texas law, concealed weapons are not allowed on college campuses. Reportedly, as the next Regular Session approaches in January, two events are driving an impulse for change.

One is the shootings at Virginia Tech, which has caused state officials to consider allowing students, faculty, and college officials to carry weapons on campus. According to a recent article in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram (registration required), Utah is the only state so far that allows weapons on all state universities. Soon there may be more.

The other event is the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision, which established for the first time that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution entails a right to possess handguns for protection. Most authorities do not believe any Texas laws will be struck down under the new decision, but it's a different political atmosphere now.

The article reports that at least one lawmaker, Rep. Joe Driver, (R-Garland) intends to consider the matter in the House Law Enforcement committee, which he currently chairs.

From the article:

Texans might soon be able to pack heat on college campuses.

That is just one of several proposals that could reach lawmakers next year as they — and legislators nationwide — explore broadening some gun laws.

"It addresses personal protection," said state Rep. Joe Driver, R-Garland, who heads the House committee that considers gun bills. "People who do things [like the Virginia Tech shooting] basically know they are walking into a gun-free zone.

"They are cowards . . . facing people not allowed to fight back."

And:

Driver said he may propose a campus personal protection act to let those with concealed handgun permits carry guns at colleges.

"We’re trying to provide students, faculty, visitors, anyone with a concealed handgun license the ability to protect themselves and at times protect others," he said.

A professor recently testified on the issue before a legislative committee, saying he is responsible for making sure students get out of the building safely if there’s a fire, tornado or other dangerous situation.

"But he said he’s tasked — if somebody starts shooting students — with hiding under his desk," Driver said.

Developmental Education "Talking Points" Offered

Texas Higher Education Commissoner Raymund Paredes has testified repeatedly in legislative hearings that developmental education needs a “complete overhaul” because it “isn’t working.” He and the Coordinating Board have endorsed a proposal to place new appropriations into a fund, with the Board serving as trustee. This revenue is to be granted to schools competitively through pilot non-course based programs, using evidence gathered from studies and best practices around the country. In the meantime, developmental courses would be funded in the traditional manner while information is gathered and pilot programs are launched and evaluated.

TCCTA is assembling a number of "Talking Points" for communicating with policy makers, leading up to the next Regular Session in January. The following points are offered for use by teachers in discussing the developmental education issue with policy makers. The TCCTA Legislative and Executive Committees will formulate and publish the association’s official Legislative Program this fall for the 2009 Regular Session.

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.

TCCTA "Talking Points" on Developmental Education

Statistics gathered by the Coordinating Board are often confusing and difficult to interpret. Since TASP was replaced by TSI, each school has designed its own approach, making generalizations problematic if not impossible.

Under the current Texas regimen, a student who enrolls in a developmental course, passes a placement test subsequently, then drops the class before the end of the term, is counted as a failure. Such measurement problems must be resolved before judging the effectiveness of developmental education.

Since the funding formula does not require that revenue generated by developmental education courses be spent on these courses, great variety exists statewide. Developmental education courses that receive adequate funding to hire talented faculty, and to provide necessary resources and training, are more successful.

Legislators are urged to read published national studies on this subject carefully. Often a headline or caption can be very misleading. Furthermore, the most recent evidence may be missing.

A perennial problem in collecting reliable and valid developmental education data is finding equivalent control groups to compare the effectiveness of remediation on student outcomes against similarly prepared students who did not receive remediation. Only recently have studies begun using more sophisticated methods. One such study (Attewell, et al., 2006) found that similarly prepared students who received developmental education were more likely to succeed (as measured by retention and achievement) than those who did not receive developmental education.

In the absence of valid statistical data, legislators are urged to listen to impressive and countless anecdotes from community college students whose academic careers were saved dramatically by effective developmental education.

For further elaboration and documentation provided by Gail Platt, Director of the Teaching and Learning Center and Department of Education, Title V Project Director, South Plains College, please see below.

From Dr. Platt:

The accountability data collected and reported by the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB) and the Legislative Budget Board (LBB) are misleading and difficult to interpret. Each program at each institution is best able to describe the programs and report results and student learning outcomes. When practitioners collect and explain their own data to the legislators a lucid and credible story emerges.

Since TASP was replaced with TSI, each institution has its own policies regarding developmental education; therefore, statewide comparisons are impossible.

Some of the THECB accountability data on developmental education found at the THECB website may be useful, but always check the data against your own records. Mistakes in data reporting occur often.

Here’s an example of how data can be misleading: CBM 002 data looks at course completion; if a student does not complete the course, the student is a failure. However, let’s say a student enrolls in a developmental reading course and after one month of instruction and practice feels confident that s/he can pass the TSI placement test. The student tests and meets the standard: Success. However, if the student then decides to drop the reading class and is given an X or W, the data will reflect that student as a failure.

Although data are the best way to demonstrate accountability, also be prepared to share with your legislators specific examples of students (their constituents) who have benefited from developmental education. These anecdotes often help legislators when they speak about their views and values of developmental education and how it impacts the people in their community.

The legislature and the public are always concerned about the so-called “costs” of developmental education. Funding for developmental education always raises questions, but as practitioners we need to be diligent in pointing out that in the past, developmental education funding resulted from the reporting of formula funded contact course hours in developmental coursework. [See http://www.lbb.state.tx.us/Higher_Education/Cost_Developmental_Ed_TX_0407.pdf.]

There is no safeguard or assurance that funds generated by the reporting of contact hours in courses are expended for those courses. If an institution invests in quality professors for developmental education courses, obtains good materials and equipment to promote learning, provides adequate professional development for developmental practitioners, sets good policies for placement and monitoring students in developmental education and observes smaller class sizes for developmental education (and other best practices), the institution will be expending funds on developmental education and will have a strong program. Studies have shown that this is seldom the case. With the introduction of TSI and each institution having its own policies, there is even greater variability among the programs in Texas than in the past. Boylan (1996) said there were wide differences among programs and – at that time of his study – the only evidence of funds expended on TASP were the test fees paid by the students.

National studies are often flawed and have failed to produce reliable data. A problem in the past in collecting reliable and valid developmental education data was finding equivalent control groups to compare the effectiveness of remediation on student outcomes against similarly prepared students who did not receive remediation. Only recently have studies begun using more sophisticated research methods to produce more reliable and valid findings. One such study (Attewell, et al, 2006) found that similarly prepared students who received developmental education were more likely to succeed (retention and achievement) than those who did not receive developmental education.

Two reports circulating around the Texas legislature have prompted some individuals to claim that developmental education in Texas does not work (See http://chronicle.com/temp/email2.php?id=djXwB2RzjwzrhxvtRtjZQgfnZ6gzpzHr).

If one carefully reads the studies, one finds that Martorell and McFarlin (2007) cautioned that their data be interpreted carefully, keeping in mind that a very select group of students performing at a very slim margin on the TASP Math Test (a test that fewer and fewer students are taking as the placement test in our institutions) comprised the sample. Based on this caveat, they suggested that developmental math courses caused more harm than good. The researcher for the second study commissioned by College Ready Texas (Miller, 2007) used the Martorell and McFarlin data. When you hear that a report has claimed developmental education does not work, be sure to get a copy of the report and find out what it really says. Legislators do not have time to always read the vast amount of information they are given. A sentence may catch their eye (or their staff’s eyes) and thus – we have a big problem although the full and complete data have not been gathered or analyzed to support that conclusion.

See also:

Attewell, Paul A., Lavin, David E., Domina, Thurston & Levey, Tania (2006).
New Evidence on College Remediation, The Journal of Higher Education - Volume 77, Number 5, September/October 2006, pp. 886-924.

Boylan, H. R. (1996). Evaluation of the Texas Academic Skills Program. National Center for Developmental Education. Boone, NC: NCDE..

SUMMARY OF “COLLEGE READINESS AND DEVELOPMENTAL EDUCATION IN TEXAS: 1998-2005”COMMISSION FOR A COLLEGE READY TEXAS (http://www.tea.state.tx.us/ed_init/thscsic/CollegeReadinessDevelopmentalEducationSummary.pdf)

College Ready Texas and developmental education study (http://www.collegereadytexas.org/documents/College%20Readiness%20and%20Developmental%20Education120707.pdf).

Coordinating Board Posts Formula Recommendations

The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board has posted its official recommendations regarding higher education formula funding. The essential points of these recommendations, reflecting the results of the Board's April meeting, have been reported here previously.

However, some new language is included in the official version, which now goes to the governor and the Legislative Budget Board. By way of some background, Commissioner of Higher Education Raymund Paredes and the Coordinating Board's Community and Technical College Advisory Committee (consisting of two-year college educators) differed significantly on the method of funding, with the commissioner proposing that the Legislature fund semester hours "completed" rather than attempted, as currently practiced. This is part of the commissioner's well-publicized effort to enact a system of performance funding for all of higher education.

The posted recommendations now contain a provision for a minimum level of funding before performance funding is put into place. Without this floor level of revenue, the formula would revert to the current method of funding enrollees on the official census day. It appears to be a way of addressing abundant concerns by school officials who believe that funding "completers" could result in a decrease in revenue for their colleges.

Here's the applicable language:

The Coordinating Board recommends funding 100 percent of the rates derived from the FY2007 Report of Fundable Operating Expenses, less estimated amounts collected for tuition over the biennium. The rates would use a phase-in approach over four years from attempted to completed contact hours at the rate of 25 percent – 50 percent – 75 percent – 100 percent. This recommendation would require an increase in general revenue appropriations of approximately $668M (37 percent).

This recommendation is conditional based on funding. If the Legislature does not increase the amount of formula funding by at least $400M (22 percent), the Coordinating Board recommends the community colleges continue to receive their funding allocation based on attempted contact hours.

It must always be stressed that such recommendations are entirely dependent upon the appropriations process in both chambers of the Legislature. TCCTA will monitor this situation very carefully. Any significant new developments will be reported here.

Textbook Selection “Talking Points” Offered

TCCTA is assembling a number of "Talking Points" for communicating with policy makers, leading up to the next Regular Session in January. Following is the next installment, on the subject of textbook selection.

BACKGROUND

In 2007, several bills were introduced, driven by understandable concerns about the cost to students of college texts. For some students books cost more than tuition and fees, according to legislative testimony. One bill sought to exempt textbooks from sales taxes. Another, HB 956 by Rep. Scott Hochberg (D-Houston), placed proscriptions and requirements on college faculty in making their choices. Some of this bill's provisions were innocuous, such as a stipulation that instructors take cost into account. Another, however, would have criminalized (with a Class B Misdemeanor) the acceptance of "gifts" by faculty from publishers that are intended to influence adoption decisions. A full definition of such "gifts" was not provided. TCCTA testified against HB 956, which failed to pass. However, an interim charge leading up to the next Regular Session mandates an examination of textbook pricing practices and potential remedies.

Of particular interest to lawmakers is the practice of "bundling" textbooks with supplemental material such as workbooks, CDs, and software that, according to testimony, drives up the cost and is rarely required by faculty or used by students.

The following points are offered for use by teachers in discussing the issue with policy makers. The TCCTA Legislative and Executive Committees will formulate and publish the association’s official Legislative Program this fall for the 2009 Regular Session.

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.

TALKING POINTS

TCCTA, in its quarterly publication and on its Web site, has consistently emphasized the issue of textbook costs to faculty, urging them to take advantage of “open source” material now available on the Internet, and other cost-saving strategies.

College faculty organizations on campuses around the state are engaged routinely in organized efforts to help provide texts to students in need. Local school policies and procedures frequently offer assistance as well.

The most expensive texts are usually found in certain subjects such as science and nursing. State policy should not be directed toward a one-size-fits-all remedy. Texts in many scientific fields are simply better in quality than before, with graphics, three-dimensional illustrations, and supplemental features providing more comprehensive and contemporary information.

Textbook selection inevitably involves the important principle of academic freedom. College faculty should be allowed to make the best choices for students, taking cost into account in a variety of ways.

Many teachers report that “bundling” of supplemental material saves students money, by allowing a single purchase. These faculty members say the extra material is crucial to their instructional mission. Such decisions are best conducted at the campus level.

The publishing market is currently adjusting rapidly to competition from online booksellers, Internet materials, customized texts by faculty, and a host of other factors. This rational process should be allowed to continue without state involvement.

Commissioner Touts Student Advisement

Testifying before the Senate Subcommittee on Higher Education Wednesday, Texas Commissioner of Higher Education Raymund Paredes underscored the results of recent studies (reported here and in the April 2008 TCCTA Messenger, page five), which point to student advising as a much-ignored key to retention.

This is noteworthy because commentators often look reflexively to the curriculum, teaching methods, and other course-based factors in formulating a remedy for high attrition levels at two-year colleges.

The commissioner told the panel that this particular gap in campus practice is "an easy problem to fix."

The committee is charged with examining the effectiveness of student advising and to explore new approaches. According to the commissioner, face-to-face contact with new students is crucial—the earlier the better. According to testimony, many community colleges already have elaborate programs of student advisement. The commissioner believes an entirely new approach may be necessary, however.

"We treat our students as if they are responsible adults," he told the committee, "but this isn't true. Many are still adolescents."

He said students need mandatory and strong orientation programs. This can involve training faculty how to participate more effectively in the process. Student mentors and peer advisors can also be effective, he said, based on documented practices in other states. This kind of orientation is geared toward first-generation students, who often don't have a support system of relatives familiar with navigating the confusing terrain of higher education.

He added, "Faculty should look more carefully after student welfare" when, for instance, a student misses class. The commissioner wasn't specific about how this could be encouraged or required at the state level.

Perhaps most importantly, Commissioner Paredes did not say how new advisement programs should be funded. He has stated repeatedly that developmental education needs "a complete overhaul," with funding to be trusteed to the Coordinating Board for experimental projects geared toward retaining under-prepared students.

Commissioner Questioned on Performance Funding

Commissioner of Higher Education Raymund Paredes was the principal witness on a variety of subjects related to higher education Wednesday, before consecutive meetings of two Senate subcommittees. Both were chaired by Sen. Judith Zaffirini (D-Laredo).

Perhaps of greatest interest to community and technical college educators may be a brief exchange regarding the commissioner's proposal to fund "completers" of college courses rather than enrollees, as currently practiced. (This proposal has been reported here previously and in the April issue of the TCCTA Messenger.)

After noting that the Closing the Gaps program is still on track, and predicting that community colleges can be expected to enroll 70% of future students in Texas, Commissioner Paredes told the panel that the Coordinating Board recently approved his recommendation for performance funding of all levels of higher education. He added that the current system has not been able to keep up with prospective population growth. Performance funding is designed theoretically to provide a more efficient system of producing successful students.

Sen. Robert Duncan (R-Lubbock) got right to the heart of what concerns many TCCTA members, asking, "How do you avoid grade inflation?"

Commissioner Paredes responded that this could be done through an assessment of "learning outcomes."

"An exit test?" asked Sen. Duncan. (Many public officials are weary of such examinations because of the Texas experience with the controversial Texas Assessment of Academic Skills exam used in the public schools.)

The commissioner responded that numerous degree and certificate programs today—such as those in many workforce education programs—already require examinations. Success with these should be rewarded, he said. As for more general education, the commissioner repeated an example he has provided before, the Collegiate Learning Assessment, as one possibility. (More information on this program is available here.)

Under the commissioner's recommendation, a student who earns an "F" would still count as a completer, as long as he or she remained in the class until the end of the semester.

Of course all this depends upon the vagaries of the complex appropriations process in the 2009 Regular Session, and would be phased in over several years, according to the commissioner's proposal.

A separate but related controversy involves the calculation of graduation rates, which the commissioner has also recommended as one component of measuring performance. The chief federal statistical tool used (and reported in the media) today assesses "first time, full-time" students only. All witnesses and senators seemed well aware of the inadequacy of any measurement that does not count part-time students (who comprise the majority of community college enrollments). Funding "completers," however, would take all students into account, the commissioner said. Also, it was pointed out at the hearing, the Coordinating Board collects data that is more complete than the institutional graduation rates used by the U.S. Department of Education.

A further complication: There is still $100 million set aside in the current biennium presumably to be distributed using a performance funding model, to be fashioned by a task force. (This plan is part of the governor's recommendation, which includes community colleges because of the restoration arrangement following the veto of health benefits last fall.) Commissioner Paredes said the recommendations of the task force will be announced soon.

The committee also heard from Commissioner Paredes on changes that may be recommended on student advising. This topic will be addressed in a subsequent post.

Senate Hearings to Examine Funding Issues

Two Senate subcommittees dealing with higher education will hold hearings Wednesday. Both are chaired by Sen. Judith Zaffirini (D-Laredo), and may get into topics related to performance funding. The hearings are primarily investigatory at this stage, intended to fulfill obligations or "unfinished business" from last session. The next Regular Session will convene in January, when any bills or riders will be introduced.

Wednesday morning, the Higher Education Subcommittee of the Senate Finance Committee will consider the following:

Review state student financial aid programs (TEXAS Grants, B-on-Time) and provide assessment of the programs' effectiveness and future funding needs.

Study the effects continued tuition deregulation will have on college enrollment and accessibility.

After adjournment of this meeting, the Higher Education Subcommittee of the Education Committee will consider the following:

Examine different methodologies for assessing the quality of degree and certificate programs at higher education institutions and for measuring student learning outcomes. Review current institutional performance standards and make recommendations that promote academic and financial accountability. Review the method for measuring graduation rates to determine whether alternative measures are more appropriately suited for institutions with a large percentage of non-traditional students. Examine ways to assess and improve academic advising to help students succeed in higher education and complete their course of study and graduate in the minimum time required.

The second meeting will likely be more interesting to community and technical college educators. Both will be broadcast from the Senate streaming video site.

News generated from either meeting will be posted on this site on Thursday.

Perry Touts Higher Ed. Vouchers

Although the the speech was directed at university regents, some of Gov. Perry's recent statements may have implications for community colleges. The governor spoke at the Governor's Higher Education Summit Wednesday in a first-of-its-kind joint meeting of the governing boards of the University of Texas System, the Texas A&M University System, the Texas Tech University System and other university officials.

The Texas Public Policy Foundation, a business-oriented conservative think tank, helped organize the meeting.

According to press reports, Gov. Perry's proposals included new requirements for tenure, bonus pay for professors, and a funding model that would amount to vouchers for students.

The Austin American Statesman (registration required) reports:

Lawmakers currently allocate tax dollars to public colleges and universities to subsidize undergraduate and graduate education based on formulas that take into account the number of students and other factors.

The [voucher] proposal calls for placing much of that money directly into students' hands, thereby emphasizing their role as the customers of higher education. All students qualifying for in-state tuition would receive the same amount of money, regardless of family income. Need-based financial aid would be on top of that.

Perry has suggested a similar approach in the past, to no avail. In January 2001, shortly after becoming governor, Perry touted an advisory panel's recommendation to wean institutions of higher learning from most of their direct appropriations.

Not surprisingly, the governor's proposal to adopt a business model was criticized by the American Association of University Professors.

On that subject, according to the Statesman piece:

Retired House Majority Leader Dick Armey, R-Dallas, also addressed the group. He criticized faculty senates as "an imbecile institution" and urged regents to sharply reduce the role of faculty members in university governance.

"Our universities are not fulfilling their essential mission in our culture, which is to teach our children," Armey said.

The Fort Worth Star-Telegram quoted Mr. Armey also: "Put faculty in their place. They are hired hands."

Talking Points on Performance Funding Offered

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.]

Senate Panel to Focus on Workforce Education

The Senate Education Committee will hold a hearing on career and technical programs in Texas, on Monday, May 19. The group is charged with making recommendations for the upcoming Regular Session, which convenes in January, 2009.

While much of the committee's deliberation will likely concern career education in the public schools, the group will also probably discuss the role of community colleges, dual credit, transfer issues, and other important matters for two-year college educators.

The chair of the panel is Sen. Florence Shapiro (R-Plano), who often expresses the view that the various levels of education should be more integrated and "seamless."

The official charge reads: "Review the access and quality of career and technical education programs in the state and make recommendations to improve these programs to address the economic and workforce needs of this state."

The meeting will be broadcast. Here is the link for streaming video of Senate meetings.