Educaction Access

,

Unfunded Mandates Accomplish Little and Frustrate Many

,

Inside Higher Education (May 17, 2010) published Community Colleges' Unfunded Mandate. It stated “President Obama, foundation leaders and the heads of advocacy groups all agree that community colleges need to focus on more than access and drastically improve their generally low completion rates. By and large, these leaders believe that these institutions know, whether by research or common sense, just what to do - such as providing better academic advising, outreach to struggling students, financial aid to encourage full-time enrollment, smaller class sizes and so forth. So what's the holdup? Community college presidents across the country argue there is a great disparity between what is being asked of their institutions as far as the "completion agenda" and their ability to actually accomplish its goals - mostly because of dwindling state and local resources….” http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/05/17/completion

Another reason for the problem not mentioned by the article is the shift of developmental-level courses to the community colleges by an increasing number of four-year institutions that no longer offer them due to their own budget issues and desire to upscale their images. Rather than acting as partners in the access priority for a growing diversity of students, four-year institutions tell students that need some courses at the developmental-level to go elsewhere. Community college enrollments are already swelling due to the national unemployment increase, funneling more students for these needed courses increases the burden on the community college when their funding is either stagnant or declining. According to some community college leaders, the surge of enrollments in this area diverts resources from offering high-demand (and often expensive) certificate and associate degree programs needed by students and local employers. A few leaders now advocate that the time of open admissions for these institutions is over and some students should go elsewhere, wherever that is.

 Big problems demand widespread partnerships (2yr, 4yr, proprietary) with the resources needed to accomplish them. Unfunded mandates are cruel to those charged with implementing them since they are the ones harshly criticized for not accomplishing the goals created by those far above them. And students do not benefit any better.

, ,

New Internet Bookmarks for 2010-05-13

, ,
, , ,

Mainstreaming best practices of learning assistance and developmental education within first-year courses

, , ,

Isolated and prerequisite remedial and developmental level courses are on the chopping block. FOr good or bad, the national dialogue argues for their relegation to community colleges and prohibition at four-year institutions. How are needs met for students who still some of the outcomes from such courses? Embedding the best elements into rigorous, first-year courses is a solution. Doing so benefits all students within the courses since all will experience turbulence within the curriculum. Following is an article that describes changes forecast a decade ago.

Damashek, R. (1999). Reflections on the future of developmental education, Part II. Journal of Developmental Education, 23(2), 18-20, 22. Retrieved July 4, 2004 from:  http://www.ced.appstate.edu/centers/ncde/reserve%20reading/V23-2damashek%20 reflections.htm

Interviews were conducted with a number of leaders within developmental education: David Arendale, Hunter Boylan, Kaylene Gebert, Martha Maxwell, Santiago Silva, and Diana Vukovich. The dialogue points to several emerging trends: (a) mainstreaming, (b) removal of developmental education from 4-year institutions, and c) increased professionalism of developmental educators. Mainstreaming developmental education courses into college-level, graduation-credit programs of study fits into the paradigm of learning assistance and enrichment for all students. The participants in the discussion were unanimous in proposing a comprehensive academic support program that would include elements such as a learning center, adjunct or paired courses, Supplemental Instruction, tutoring, student assessment, and program evaluation. Boylan advocates funds for professional development and Gebert proposes faculty, student, and staff recognition whereas Silva includes academic advising, counseling, career services, mentoring, and especially faculty training in his list of important program components. Arendale and Vukovich propose a complete paradigm shift away from the medical model to learning support for all students. By deferring to Maxwell’s (1997) latest book Improving Student Learning, Vukovich gives Maxwell credit for providing insight into best practices based on years of experience and the best research resulting in the recommendation of a comprehensive learning assistance model. the value of such a model is that it is more easily integrated into the academic process because it is understood as service for all students. This model is not burdened by the stigma of serving only the least able students, who, for many academic, administrative, and political leaders, are seen as a drain on the institution’s academic standards.

, , ,

Developing smartness: The lost mission of higher education

, , ,

Headlines within the postsecondary press report morre frequently the "alarm" of students arriving at college that lack sufficient academic preparation and their subsequent need for enrollment in developmental-level courses. These are  not new concerns. Higher education officials have been voicing them since the first college oppened in America four hundred years ago. Why are we surprised? Students go to college to learn what they don't already know and to do things that are yet to have the skills for.

The change in the dialogue is now that more policy makers want to stratify access and opportunity in higher education. Admit only those students who are already smart and skilled and send the rest to the community college. Even community colleges are increasingly voicing frustration over the burden and some call for entry level standards and elimination of open door admissions. Before proceeding with that conversation, they should review Dr. Astin's article on this subject.

Astin, A. W. (1998). Remedial education and civic responsibility. National Crosstalk, 6(2), 12-13. Retrieved July 4, 2004, from: http://www.highereducation.org/crosstalk/pdf/ ctsummer98.pdf The author, director of the Higher Education Research Institute at UCLA, argues that remedial education is the most important problem in education today and providing instruction in this area would do more to alleviate more social and economic problems than any other activity. Astin discusses the history and stigma of remedial education and how higher education has become focused on "identifying smart students" rather than "developing smartness" in all its students. Astin argues that it is for the benefit of society that remedial education, affirmative action, and other programs be highly supported and valued.

It is easy for a college to take highly gifted students and help their reach even higher. It takes much more skill, commitment, and dedication to take students who have high desire, but have yet obtained a wide set of skills, experiences, and knowledge. But isn't that what the general public wants us to do? Identifying smart students and admitting them is easy. "Developing smartness" is much harder. And more satisfying.