TCCTA Blog

Board Publishes Transfer Report

The Coordinating Board, during its recent quarterly meeting, received a staff report on student transfers from community colleges to Texas universities.

The study followed students with 60 semester hours from two-year schools, compared with "native" students at four-year institutions, also with 60 hours. (Obviously this leaves a huge number out—namely all those who transfer before accumulating this number. But presumably it serves as an apples-to-apples metric.)

In a word—not surprisingly—transfers students don't succeed as quickly. Community college students, who all too often have a plethora of personal and financial baggage to carry, take longer at all levels and, once they transfer, continue to do so.

From the Executive Summary:

Overall, the survey and performance data indicate that Texas public universities understand the importance of transfer students in the state higher education system and make efforts to recruit, retain, and graduate them. However, the data also show that Texas public universities could be doing a better job at helping these students make the transition from community college to university.

This report provides a summary of a study regarding the success trajectories of junior-level students (students who have earned 60 semester credit hours) native to a university, and students who have transferred to a university from a community college with successful completion of 60 semester credit hours (SCH) prior to transfer. These figures do not reflect overall completion rates for all transfer students; all universities receive many transfer students prior to the 60-earned-SCH mark. However, these figures are useful for comparing those students who have made substantial progress toward completing a bachelor’s degree, and they are more reliable because they compare both native and transfer students who have persisted through approximately the first half of their undergraduate coursework.

This cohort of students became juniors in the fall of 2006. The students were tracked through the spring of 2010.

…Statewide, 83 percent of university native students who achieved junior status by earning a total of 60 SCH prior to the fall 2006 semester completed a bachelor’s degree within the following four years. The completion rate for community college transfer students was 67 percent during the same four-year period (through 2010), showing a completion rate for community college transfer students that lagged 16 percent behind their university native student peers. For a similar cohort of native and transfer students who became juniors one year earlier, in 2005, and who completed a bachelor’s degree during or before 2009, the difference was 18 percent. Thus, within the 2006 cohort of students, transfer students gained slightly in degree completion when compared with transfer students from the previous year.

The interesting part is not the overall comparisons, but the variety across universities. For instance:

While the statewide comparison for 2006 shows a 16 percent difference in degree completion between university native and community college transfer students, there is a substantial variation in the achievement gap between native and transfer students if one looks at data for each individual university. For example, transfer and native juniors in the 2006 cohort at UT- Pan American graduated at almost the same rate: 77 percent for native students and 76 percent for transfer students, a negligible difference of one percent. At UH-Downtown, native students graduated at a rate of 61 percent, while transfer students graduated only two percentage points down, at 59 percent. At Texas Southern University, only 29 percent of transfer students completed their degrees within the four years following their achievement of junior status, while 60 percent of native students graduated during the same period.

Obviously there is a lot going on here. The report states that transfer students and the state do not end up paying more, since two-year college costs are lower.

Here's the full report. Definitely worth examination. You may wish to scroll down to the universities in your area to see how they compare with others. Perhaps some "best practices" can be replicated.

 

Student Persistence Improving

The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board conducted its quarterly meeting on Thursday, October 27. This post concerns only one agenda item, with other topics to follow.

Susan Brown, assistant commissioner for planning and accountability, gave a report on the preliminary fall 2011 enrollments. Significantly, she noted that "something is working," regarding the persistence rates of college students. (Note: The Coordinating Board no longer uses "retention" to describe the goal of keeping students enrolled, since the term is used negatively in K-12 education—where "retaining" means a whole other deal.)

Precise figures are not available at this point, and Ms. Brown emphasized that the data are tentative. However, she said the phenomenon was "pretty extraordinary" and should produce higher graduation rates—at all levels. Commissioner of Higher Education Raymund Paredes added that it is indeed "remarkable" and complimented the institutions for their improvement.

Although the numbers have not been certified, enrollments at Texas institutions of higher education increased by 4.3 percent over fall 2010 levels. Preliminary enrollment in Texas is now 1.5 million students. Totals at public community colleges continue to display the greatest increases compared to other higher education sectors—6.4% over 2010, according to Board reports.

Continuing a trend that began several years ago, community and technical colleges account for most enrollment growth in higher education. Among public community colleges, the Lone Star College District experienced the largest increase in enrollments—11,854. Not surprisingly, most growth has taken place in metropolitan areas. 

Dr. Paredes reported that the goals of the Closing the Gaps initiative remain on target. Nearly 62,500 more students enrolled in colleges and universities in Texas this fall than did in 2010, according to the preliminary enrollment data. This jump was not as large as that of the two previous years, but is nonetheless impressive, testimony indicated.

The Closing the Gaps initiative calls for 630,000 more students at Texas institutions of higher education over 2000 levels by 2015. Factoring in fall 2011 preliminary data, Texas needs to add 53,000 more students over the next 4 years to meet the 2015 goal.

Challenges remain with getting some ethnic minorities through the pipeline, particularly Hispanics, whose rate of population growth in Texas still outpaces their participation in higher education, and African-Americans, who remain less likely than whites to enroll and succeed in Texas colleges and universities. Still, African-Americans experienced the greatest percentage increase over 2010
enrollments—9.9 percent, according to the Board. 

Interestingly, the "other" category in terms of ethnicity is growing rapidly, as students respond to surveys reflecting a multi-ethnic composition. Dr. Paredes said this could be a good thing, with race perhaps playing less of a role in academic success.

Pension Plans Targeted

Traditional "defined benefits" pension programs such as the Texas Teacher Retirement System (TRS) will likely face organized efforts to convert them to "defined contribution" plans in the next Regular Session of the Texas Legislature. (Unlike TRS, the Optional Retirement Program, chosen by many college and university educators, is a defined contribution plan—similar to 401(k) plans that private companies typically provide for employees. Some lawmakers prefer such plans because they entail less long-term liability by the state.)

The Texas Public Policy Foundation, an influential small-government think tank, recently sponsored a forum during which commentators argued that programs such as TRS are unsustainable. The forum was covered in a recent article by Kate Alexander in the Austin American-Statesman. The move to alter the state's approach will likely include municipal employees—at least the ones with traditional pensions.

Last Session, a bill was introduced by Rep. Warren Chisum (R-Pampa) that would have gradually eliminated TRS, by "grandfathering" current members, but requiring new employees to enroll in a defined contribution plan. TCCTA lobbyist Beaman Floyd testified in opposition to the bill, which failed to garner support and died in the House.

Defenders of TRS argue that the fund is managed well and presently robust compared to many state programs around the country. True, it has not achieved "actuarial soundness," allowing policy makers to consider enhancing benefits for retirees, who have not had a cost-of-living increase in many years. But its investments have performed well in the wake of the recent financial crisis, and the portfolio is headed in a positive direction.

Current and prospective TRS retirees worry that, if new employees are taken out the system, it will affect the health of the fund—one of the largest in the country—in its ability to provide income security for the future. To make matters more perilous, many community college educators are not eligible to receive Social Security benefits.

Here are a couple of choice passages from the article in the AAS:

With a pension, the employee and employer both contribute to a professionally managed pooled investment fund, and the retiree is guaranteed a monthly benefit until death.

An alternative would be a plan similar to a 401(k), in which there is no guaranteed benefit and the employee bears the responsibility of ensuring he or she has adequate income to last throughout retirement.

Bill Hammond, executive director of the Texas Association of Business, said he expects public pensions to be a big issue in the next legislative session.

It's too early to tell whether the upcoming debate will focus only on legislative changes that will permit cities to alter their plans or include a broader overhaul of statewide funds, such as those that serve teachers and state workers.

And:

Critics say the discussion at Tuesday's forum was heavy on talk of daunting unfunded liabilities yet light on context and ideas.

"They're not offering real solutions," said Tim Lee , executive director of the Texas Retired Teachers Association. "It is rhetoric that is dangerous because it may jeopardize what is already working in the State of Texas."

Undocumented Students May Face New Obstacles

Because of the presidential election campaign, a great deal of media attention has been focused on Gov. Rick Perry's policy (based on laws he signed) of allowing the children of undocumented residents to pay in-state tuition. Reports from around the state indicate that several candidates for the Texas Legislature have promised to abolish the program.

Now it turns out that these students are also currently eligible for TEXAS Grants, according to an article in the Texas Tribune by Reeve Hamilton and Thanh Tan.

TEXAS Grants, a need-based grant program that covers tuition and fees at most institutions, is only available to Texas residents. Students unable to prove U.S. citizenship may establish residency if they graduated from a Texas high school, have lived in the state for three years before applying, and sign an affidavit indicating their intent to apply for permanent residency status as soon as possible, the article reports.

In today's political environment, it is hard to imagine many candidates embracing the program as currently constituted. In fact we can likely expect proposed bills to eliminate the practice, as all students and their parents cope with higher tuition and reductions in financial aid. This will likely affect two-year college students in particular.

The Trib piece does a nice job of examining some real-life situations and researching the statistics (please read the entire article):

Two TEXAS Grant recipients who are not in the country legally shared their stories with the Tribune on Monday. One is a Texas A&M graduate who is now working in a restaurant because he can't provide the documentation necessary for an employer to hire him legally in his field of study, biomedical science.

The other is a recent graduate of Austin High School, the school Perry's now-grown children attended. The student's high school counselors described the student as a high achiever — a model student who had been accepted to numerous universities but had chosen a more affordable two-year college.

Now starting his first year at Austin Community College, the 18-year-old native of Mexico told the Tribune that he could not qualify for federal aid because of immigration status. So he filled out the Texas Application for State Financial Aid, a 16-page document that requires students to simply prove they have been a resident of Texas for at least three years before they can qualify to pay the in-state tuition rate.

The student told the Tribune he is receiving $1,300 in state aid, which will pay for about 70 percent of his education. The rest he earned in scholarships as a high school student. Brought to the United States at the age of six months, he plans to study business management so that he can run a restaurant. He said he reached that decision after seeing his father work for years in various kitchens.

“Some people are taking heat over undocumented immigrants. I guess I’m just thankful for Perry," he said. "Most Republicans don’t understand my situation, that I really had no choice. I had no say in coming here. I’m not going to leave because I’ve never been to Mexico. I don’t remember it. I don’t know anything about it.”

The state scholarship money spent on students who are not in the country legally is not a significant percentage of the total amount allocated by the state. A total of 68,119 awards were distributed in fiscal 2010, at a total cost of $274.1 million. It’s not even a large portion of the total student population. About 16,500 students signed affidavits in 2010 asserting they would apply for permanent residence status — out of a total of almost 1,400,000 students paying in-state tuition rates.

"Urgent Call to Action" on Fraud

U.S. Department of Education officials have issued an "urgent call to action," warning colleges about fraud rings that use fake students to steal financial aid funds. For background, see this previous post. Two-year colleges are particularly vulnerable, as students, under current law, are allowed to use "leftover" funds for personal expenses after tuition and fees are paid. Since community college tuition is typically lower than that of universities, perpetrators find the schools more profitable.

The letter, available here, lists a series of steps that institutions can take to combat the problem.
This communication follows up a report last month by the department's inspector general that described a dramatic increase in the number and scope of fraud cases involving distance education. Fraudulent activity is easier with distance courses, for obvious reasons.

The letter is from Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education Eduardo M. Ochoa and James W. Runcie, chief operating officer of the Federal Student Aid office. The document provided above lists warning signs colleges that should look for in identifying potential fraud rings.

House Interim Charges Released

Texas Speaker of the House Joe Straus has announced the Interim Charges for the 82nd Regular Session of the Legislature, which will convene in January 2013.

Capitol observers take note of the items on the list as a preview of policy issues that are likely to be considered. The charges are given to the standing committees for their consideration. After conducting hearings over the next several months, each panel is required to file a report prior to the Session.

It is important to keep in mind that the Legislature is not limited in any way by the charges, and can take up whatever bills and resolutions are introduced.

Here is the entire list.

Below are the charges from committees that are most likely to impact community and technical college educators. 

 

House Committee on Appropriations

Evaluate the funding, performance, and administration of the state's adult basic education programs. (Joint with the House Committee on Higher Education)

Monitor the performance of state agencies and institutions, including operating budgets, plans to carry out legislative initiatives and planned budget reductions, caseload projections, performance measure attainment, implementation of all rider provisions, and any other matter affecting the fiscal condition of the agencies and the state.


House Committee on Higher Education

Review the various research funding programs available to institutions of higher education. Analyze the effectiveness of each program and recommend whether state funding should be continued. Consider whether the investments made in these programs are attracting research projects to Texas and whether more emphasis should be placed on policies that attract outside research funding to Texas. Consider whether maintaining multiple programs dilutes the state's efforts to attract groundbreaking research to Texas.

Review potential improvements to transfer pathways within the state's higher education system. Examine the impact of transferability on timely degree completion. Study and recommend strategies to improve the "2+2" model as a low- cost degree option.

Evaluate proposals for the state’s next master plan for higher education beyond 2015, including a review of various metrics to measure successful outcomes in higher education.
Evaluate the funding, performance, and administration of the state’s adult basic education programs. (Joint with the House Committee on Appropriations)

Examine the impact of research at state universities on the state economy. Identify ways to increase the partnership opportunities between private business and research institutions to enhance the commercialization of newly discovered technology. (Joint with the House Committee on Economic & Small Business Development)

Monitor the agencies and programs under the committee's jurisdiction and the implementation of relevant legislation passed by the 82nd Legislature.


House Committee on Pensions, Investments, and Financial Services

Review local retirement systems that are not a part of statewide systems, the administration of these retirement systems, and current liabilities. Study and make recommendations aimed at curbing rising pension costs to local governments.

Review the Texas County and District Retirement System and the Texas Municipal Retirement System and examine plan provisions offered to individual participating counties and cities.

Monitor the implementation of HB 2592 (82R) and HB 2594 (82R), regarding pay day lending.
Review the impact of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act on Texas industries, with particular attention to any federal preemption issues that exist. Make appropriate legislative recommendations.

Monitor all agencies and programs under the committee’s jurisdiction. Specifically, monitor the study by the Employees Retirement System of Texas and the Teacher Retirement System of Texas of the viability of the current defined benefit plans as well as the implications and feasibility of creating a defined contribution or hybrid plan.

Report: "Time is the Enemy"

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.

"Guns on Campus" Movement Continues

A student movement to pass laws allowing concealed weapons on college and university campuses is intensifying its efforts in the wake of modest success during the last year.

The group is called Students for Concealed Carry on Campus.

During the last Regular Session of the Texas Legislature, a bill by Sen. Jeff Wentworth (R-San Antonio), which would have allowed licensed carriers to bring guns into campus buildings, failed to pass. TCCTA testified against the bill, after an online survey revealed 80 percent opposition from members. The measure as written would not allow local colleges to make their own decisions—the position TCCTA advanced during testimony.

According to a recent article by Rachel Wiseman in the Chronicle of Higher Education, only Wisconsin and Mississippi have passed laws recently allowing guns on campus, and Wisconsin's law is subject to interpretation regarding whether faculty can bring their guns to school. Mississippi's law was buried in another measure and failed to attract much attention prior to passage, according to the piece. Nevertheless, the student organization remains committed.

Absent a great deal of aggregate data on this issue (college and university campuses are among the safest places to be, so there are few actual cases), the debate will likely center upon hypothetical "dueling scenarios" from the advocates.

The article features a member of the student organization displaying an empty holster during an event last year at Oklahoma State University. (Don't be surprised if empty holsters show up in your classes.) The woman with the holster was raped at gunpoint. She believes she could have prevented the violation if she had been allowed to bring her weapon to campus.

Just Skip Developmental Education?

Those in the field of developmental education are bombarded from all directions these days. Here in Texas, a number of pilot programs are in operation to help the Coordinating Board and Legislature determine the best path for a "complete overhaul" of DE, in the words of Commissioner of Higher Education Raymund Paredes.

One of the controversies making the rounds lately involves purported evidence that some students might be better off without developmental education altogether. Here's an excerpt from an article in Washington Monthly by Susan Headden, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and senior writer/editor at Education Sector, a Washington, D.C., think tank (but by all means please read the entire piece):

In 2010, [researchers] Bailey and colleagues Dong Wook Jeong and Sung-Woo Cho led a study that looked at tens of thousands of community college students who scored low on placement tests and other measures but ignored the advice or instruction to take remedial classes and instead enrolled directly in a for-credit course. A full 71 percent passed the for-credit course. That’s not much lower than the 77 percent pass rate for all students who took those for-credit courses. And it’s only slightly lower than the pass rate for students who first took and completed remedial courses. As the researchers note, however, many who start in remedial classes either drop out or fail before they ever take a credit-bearing course. Factor that in, and only about 27 percent of those who agreed to take remedial courses ultimately passed for-credit courses, as opposed to the 72 percent who blew off remediation. “It appears,” the researchers concluded, “that the students in this sample who ignored the advice of their counselors and proceeded directly to college-level courses made wise decisions.” Michael W. Kirst, a former professor of education at Stanford University and a member of the California state board of education, said the findings “suggest strongly that student access may be unfairly denied and that many students capable of success are not given the chance to try.”

Those in the DE field are especially urged to examine the article in full to see how the placement and testing regimen described differs from the way it's done in Texas. Are the exams the same? Are they administered differently? Can students evade placement at your school? Are the same sort of results found with both math and verbal achievement? What about the age of DE students? (There is a big difference between an older "returning" student and someone fresh out of high school.)

Those in the field also tend to report that many students are on the edge in terms of deficiencies, while some are barely able to read and write. Some policy makers in Texas believe the students with the lowest achievement and aptitude should be placed in Adult Basic Education rather than DE.

Jay Mathews of the Washington Post picks up on the controversy and provides a nice overview. Here's his concluding point:

Remedial instructors said they are being unfairly criticized despite helping students who are far behind. “No one but us knows the students, but who is listening to us?” a teacher at NVCC [Northern Virginia Community College] said, according to George Gabriel, [NVCC vice president for institutional research].

That is a good question. Remedial educators need to be involved with the changes. With so much in flux, students also must ask many questions about their options as they start community college. These institutions, I am learning, are much more complex and important than most people think.

Student Loans on Ballot

On November 8, Texas voters will consider a series of state constitutional amendments proposed by the Texas Legislature during the last Regular Session. Proposition 3 seeks voter authorization for the Coordinating Board to issue general obligation bonds for the purpose of funding student loans.

Known as the College Access Loan (CAL), the program has served more than 340,000 students with $2 billion in student loans. Because the bonds are repaid with student payments on their outstanding loans, the bonds do not count toward the state debt and do not require tax dollars to repay or administer, according to an official statement.

The CAL program is available to Texas residents who enroll at least half-time at a Texas college or university. The loans are especially popular with students in private schools and middle class students who do not qualify for other programs.

Here's a link with more information.