The House Committee on Higher Education conducted an important hearing on April 20, the majority of which dealt with an interim charge to "study and recommend strategies for improving community college participation and success." The committee is chaired by Rep. Dan Branch (R-Dallas).
The panel explored other important issues that will be taken up in subsequent blog posts.
As noted here frequently, state policy makers are very concerned about the rates of transfer, graduation, and course completion by students at Texas two-year colleges. Enrollments are at historic highs, but the percentage of students who transfer or receive a credential is low compared with other states. A majority of students who walk in the door of a Texas community college do not achieve any of these objectives after six years—the customary chronological benchmark used nationwide.
Much of the current discussion in the Legislature is driven by a recent report by the Governor's Business Council. The full GBC report is available here. All concerned community and technical college educators should peruse the statistical presentation, as it frames the dialogue in the House and Senate these days.
One controversy stems from the GBC's use of data involving "First-Time Students," collected in even-numbered years from the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (also known as IPEDS). Here's a link for more information. Many community college leaders believe the IPEDS numbers fail to capture the success of two-year college students, who are distinct demographically from those who attend state universities and private schools. Community college students increasingly tend to come and go over a long period of time, reflecting precarious life circumstances.
However, this solitary phenomenon would not seem to explain the low performance of Texas students when compared with those in many other states, at least according to the GBC. After all, virtually all community colleges in the U.S. are open admission institutions with essentially the same mission. Hence it may be the comparative information in the study that is most problematic.
As the study indicates, part of the explanation undoubtedly lies in the lack of college readiness that Texas college students display. For instance, we have known for many years that standardized test scores tend to be lower here.
Also, since the median income level is lower in Texas, students are more likely to be "on the edge" financially. To cite a small but important example, those with low incomes are less likely to own computers, making it less likely that they will take advantage of distance education opportunities. Many faculty members report that students who are ill or have sick kids have less educational persistence in a state with one of the highest percentages of children without health insurance.
Many observers have noted that there has been little incentive over the years for students to achieve associate degrees in Texas, as most simply prefer to transfer when they think they are ready. Some other states, according to testimony, have made policy decisions to create incentives encouraging students to stick around at their local two-year college for an associates degree.
Finally, what may be the most telling fact of life today: Texas community college students today tend to come from homes in which no one ever attended college.
In point of fact, most educational indicators tend to be lower in Texas than in other states (a glaring exception is medical education and research), so it should come as no surprise that some statistics related to community colleges would lag behind, too.
These added factors are intended as partial explanations, not excuses. All are agreed that improvement is vital. But you are unlikely to get the entire picture from one report. So it is imperative for Texas community and technical college educators to provide all additional pertinent information to their lawmakers and community leaders as the Session approaches in January.
There is room for hope in the fact that the "default" curriculum in Texas high schools is now more rigorous, and the new end-of-course exams may show some promise as they are implemented.
Actually, many statistics related to student success are improving, according to testimony by Commissioner of Higher Education Raymund Paredes, but not fast or extensive enough to keep up with population growth. To complicate matters, as one witness noted, the growth in enrollment at community colleges is partly because of increases in the "difficult-to-educate" student population—low income, first-generation students who almost always require remediation before they can tackle credit-bearing classes.
As noted in a previous post, El Paso Community College is often heralded as exhibiting the "best practices" in helping students navigate through their academic careers, even when it involves developmental education. Richard Rhodes, president of EPCC, told the panel that a grant from the Lumina Foundation was instrumental in their success. A key component deserves emphasis: early intervention while the student is in high school. This requires additional resources, of course.
Another witness observed that EPCC is able to achieve notable improvement in transfers, party because the overwhelming majority of students there advance to one university—in this case the University of Texas at El Paso. Coordinating all the articulation agreements at, say, Temple College in Central Texas, might be more problematic, the witness pointed out.
Dr. Paredes also testified that 57 percent of higher education students are enrolled in two-year colleges. The cost to attend a community college in Texas is much lower than the national average ($1,750 to $2,793). Texas four-year year universities charge basically the same as the national average, but since Texas’ per capita income is below the national average, it makes university attendance more prohibitive. So these cash-strapped individuals enroll at their local two-year school.
The commissioner reiterated his support for a complete overhaul of developmental education, and for changing the funding formula to reward schools for "completers" of courses rather than enrollment numbers, as under the current funding formula.