TCCTA Blog

Community Colleges Face Challenges on Violence

Recent outbreaks of violence at community colleges illustrate that two-year schools are not immune from such tragedies, though residential institutions often get more media attention. An excellent article in Inside Higher Ed. by Scott Jaschik points out that community colleges may actually be more susceptible to violence than universities. The piece also contains a concise list of these sobering events. It's striking when placed all together. 

As the article points out, two-year institutions are more likely to use leased space, such as within shopping centers, making security arrangements especially problematic. These schools are also more likely to have numerous, smaller, branch campuses, posing particular challenges. And community colleges often do not possess adequate resources to provide security at all their sites.

Most disturbing, however, based on a study cited in the article, is the apparent fact that two-year schools are less likely to have a response agenda, with designated team members chosen to fashion a plan for all known contingencies. There is no one-size-fits-all template here. Geographic and physical differences necessitate a site-specific approach.

Ironically, the very nature of community colleges—flexibility and the ability to blend into local circumstances—makes them more vulnerable. If your school doesn't have a "What if…" plan in place, it is time to consider it.

Coordinating Board Posts School Comparisons

The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board has launched a Web site designed to allow students, parents, and taxpayers to compare higher education institutions according to various criteria.

The metrics will seem familiar to those who pay attention to the current emphasis on student success. Comparisons are also offered on the cost of education.

The site has attracted the attention of the Chronicle of Higher Education, in an article by Eric Kelderman.

Here is the official site called Compare College TX, which has an option for two-year schools. The Web site is financed with a grant from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

According to the Chronicle article, “Texas is also teaming up with the College Measures Web site to provide more-specific information on the earnings of graduates of particular degree programs. The College Measures site is a partnership of the American Institutes for Research and Matrix Knowledge, a consulting firm.”

"This transparency will help more students earn a certificate or degree and achieve their dreams," Gov. Rick Perry said at a news event.

From the press release:

"Compare College TX creates an invaluable resource for students and their families to research postsecondary education options and ultimately find the best fit for that individual student," said Fred W. Heldenfels IV, Chairman of the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. "This tool is another step we are taking in our work with students, parents, educators and advisors to encourage a college and career-ready culture and prepare students for the next step in education."
 
Texas is the first state to turn this extensive data into an interactive and engaging resource for families and education advisors as well as legislators and policy-makers. Most importantly, a comprehensive, mobile-friendly version of the tool allows users to have easy access to the information from their smart phones and other mobile devices.
 
"The goal is to make sure everyone succeeds, and this technology is an important step in ensuring that success," said Nicole Hurd, executive director and founder of the National College Advising Corps. "Now, you can compare schools based on your own needs and select a school that serves you well, and you can have the information with you wherever you are."
 
In conjunction with Compare College TX, today the THECB also issued the third edition of the Texas Public Higher Education Almanac, which was developed to provide greater transparency for the performance of higher education institutions. The new online tool utilizes the data collected for the almanac plus additional data for greater transparency, with easier access to even more information to help students learn about and evaluate their higher education options.

Compare College TX completes the THECB's suite of online tools designed to help Texas students and their parents plan for college in four stages: inspiration, exploration, information, and application:
 
Inspiration

Generation TX (gentx.org) – inspires a college and career-ready culture in Texas public schools by increasing awareness and building support for the Texas College and Career Readiness Standards and helping students understand college and career-ready options after high school graduation

Exploration

Compare College TX (comparecollegetx.com) – provides an interactive comparison of facts and performance measures including average tuition and fees, top degrees awarded, student demographics, four- and six-year graduation rates, student-to-faculty ratio and much more

Information

College for All Texans (collegeforalltexans.com) – gives counselors, future students and their parents tips for readying students for college, saving for school tuition, applying for financial aid, and more; and

Application

Apply Texas (applytexas.org) – provides one-stop access for applying to any public university in the state as well as participating community and private colleges.
 
MEDIA CONTACT:
Dominic Chavez
External Relations
Ofc: (512) 427-6117
Cell: (512) 906-9468
Email: er@thecb.state.tx.us

TRS Bill Set for Vote in House

A major TRS bill designed to pave the way for the fund's "actuarial soundness" is set for a vote in the House on Friday, May 17. As reported earlier, system members who are vested (with five years of service) are exempted under the measure from prospective restrictions on early retirement. Those who are not vested will have to work until age 62 for full benefits without penalty. The so-called Rule of 80 (combining age and years of service) still applies under the bill.

The bill, which has already passed the Senate, is SB 1458, sponsored by Sen. Robert Duncan (R-Lubbock). Note: the portions of the bill regarding health benefits do not apply to community and technical college educators. Also, participants in the Optional Retirement Program are not affected.

Please see this previous post for more details. The post includes the proposed schedule for increased contributions by active members in the future under the bill. 

The measure must pass both chambers in identical form before being sent to the governor, with only a few days left in the Regular Session.

Here is the TCCTA Legislative Resources page.

Friendly, Not Friends

The teacher-student relationship has evolved like all social customs. There was a time when professors taught wearing mortarboards and addressed students as Mr. and (perhaps) Miss. The latter formality still applies in some cases, but most of us are less distant on a personal level with students than we used to be.

Being more friendly with students is also consistent with current research indicating that "engagement" contributes to retention. If students feel welcome and part campus life, they are more likely to stick around.

On the other hand, we all presumably understand certain limits that should remain. A recent post in Faculty Focus by  Mary C. Clement and Katherine Whatley explores the issue, including the role that appropriate attire by faculty may play. More importantly, the use of social media has added a new element to the conversation. The authors underscore a common recommendation to use a separate Facebook profile for class business only. Seems like a good plan.

Social media may offer the same opportunities and challenges that teachers in small towns have always experienced. Such educators commonly see their students at grocery stores, athletic events, and gas stations. It can be a very good thing. (On the Simpsons, citizens of Springfield know it is Saturday because Principal Skinner is wearing his cargo pants. On the other hand, when teacher Ms. Krabapple has a fling with creepy Comic Book Guy, everyone knows about it.)

To be honest, younger teachers should probably be particularly alert to crossing any lines. Those of us slouching toward Medicare probably have less to fret about. Which is probably the only context in which the previous sentence makes any sense at all.

Bill Would Expand Transcripts

A bill has passed the House and been sent to the Senate that would require universities to place class averages or median grades on student transcripts beside the letter grade for each course. So far the measure does not include community colleges.

The bill is HB 3498, sponsored by Rep. Scott Turner (R-Frisco)

According to the official analysis, the bill is designed as a means to combat grade inflation:

Interested parties analogize grade inflation to monetary inflation in that grade inflation devalues higher education, or student transcripts, the same way monetary inflation devalues the dollar.  Those parties contend that this process is unfair to both students and employers who must attempt to appraise those students' talents during the hiring process. According to the parties, employers have long complained that grade inflation makes it virtually impossible to rank job applicants, as nearly all have A or B averages, a trend which has only increased over the past few decades. H.B. 3498 seeks to increase transparency with regard to grade inflation by requiring that a student's postsecondary transcript include the average grade awarded in each class.

The bill would require:

…each general academic teaching institution to include on a student's transcript, for each class attempted by the student, the average grade that was awarded to all students in the class. The bill requires the institution, for a class for which letter grades are awarded, to include on the transcript the median grade that was awarded to all students in the class. The bill requires the institution to place the average or median grade, as applicable, immediately to the right of the student's individual grade. The bill exempts from these requirements a class offered to students solely on a pass-fail basis or for independent study credit or in which grades are reported for 10 students or fewer.

 

Deadline for Contact Information Approaches

May 31 is the deadline to update your contact information for the Employees Retirement System, prior to the open enrollment period in July. ERS is the agency responsible for health benefits for community and technical college educators.

If you recently changed your address, e-mail address, or phone number, don’t forget to update that information in your online ERS account by May 31, 2013 at 5:00 p.m. so you can receive benefits information from ERS this summer, in time for the official Annual Enrollment.

You can update your information at any time of the year, but you must do so by May 31 to receive Annual Enrollment materials at your updated addresses.

Here is a link for more information.

TRS Bill Passes Senate

The Senate has passed unanimously a bill designed to shore up the massive Texas Teacher Retirement fund, allowing a cost-of-living subsidy for some current retirees, and paving the way for the fund's "actuarial soundness." The bill is SB 1458, sponsored by Sen. Robert Duncan (R-Lubbock).

Please inspect the "Engrossed" version for details. Note: The portions of the measure related to health care do not apply to community and technical college educators. Also the bill does not affect ORP participants.

SB 1458 must pass the House to become law, with little time left in the Regular Session.

For active TRS members, a key change from earlier versions of the bill is a provision to retain early retirement eligibility for all vested (with five years experience) employees who have crossed the "rule of 80," totalling age and experience. This is an important improvement, as the introduced bill would have required individuals not presently age 50 or over to remain employed until age 62 for retirement without penalty.

Members with less than five years experience must reach, for early retirement, the age of 62 under SB 1458, with a five percent penalty per year under this age.

Also, active members will pay more under the bill, starting in 2015. Contributions will rise according to the following schedule:

• 6.4 in FY 2014
• 6.7 in FY 2015
• 7.2 in FY 2016
• 7.7 in FY 2017

Keep in mind also that the Legislature meets every two years. The current appropriations bill provides funding for the next biennium (2014-15) only. When the Legislature convenes for its 2015 Session, lawmakers could certainly revisit the issue.

However, SB 1458 is designed, according to its sponsors, to provide retirement security for the long term. It also helps put to rest—for now—the thorny issue of converting TRS to a "defined contribution" plan, in which benefits are determined solely by the amount of money individuals have earned with their contributions and investments.

Please visit this site frequently to be informed of any more changes.

 

Bill Would Require Online Streaming

A bill has passed the House and been sent to the Senate that would require large community college districts to post their agendas online and to enable interested individuals to view board meetings streamed on the district's Web site. The measure, HB 2668 (now a Committee Substitute), is sponsored by Rep. Hubert Vo (D-Houston). The must pass the Senate to become law.

Any college district "with a total student enrollment of more than 20,000 in any semester of the preceding academic year, for any regularly scheduled meeting of the governing board for which public notice is required" would be affected if the bill passes, according to the official analysis.

College boards in metropolitan areas often slip off the public radar, as they compete for attention with many other units of local government. Many newspapers rarely cover community college activities, especially in big cities. As with all public officials under current law, college trustees will be allowed to meet privately in some circumstances under the bill.

Here are the details of HB 2668:

C.S.H.B. 2668 amends the Government Code to require the governing board of a junior college district with a total student enrollment of more than 20,000 in any semester of the preceding academic year, for any regularly scheduled meeting of the governing board for which public notice is required, to post as early as practicable in advance of the meeting on the district's Internet website any written agenda and related supplemental written materials provided by the district to the board members for the members' use during the meeting; to broadcast the meeting, other than any portions of the meeting closed to the public as authorized by law, over the Internet in the manner prescribed by statutory provisions relating to the Internet broadcast of open meetings; and to record the broadcast and make that recording publicly available in an online archive located on the district's Internet website. The bill exempts from these posting requirements written materials that the general counsel or other appropriate attorney for the district certifies are confidential or may be withheld from public disclosure under public information law and establishes that the governing board of a junior college district is not required to comply with the bill's requirements if that compliance is not possible because of an act of God, force majeure, or a similar cause not reasonably within the governing board's control. The bill's provisions apply only to a meeting of the governing board of a junior college district for which public notice is given on or after January 1, 2014.

Too Many Choices

We think we are helping students by offering more choices in the curriculum, along with various options in pedagogy, designed to fit their personal situations or learning styles.

However, new research indicates that entering students are often confused, and end up dropping out when they hit a fork in the road. A recent article by Katherine Mangan in the Chronicle of Higher Education outlines the research, which was presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. The authors are  Shanna Smith Jaggars, assistant director of the Community College Research Center at Columbia University's Teachers College, and Jeffrey Fletcher, a senior research assistant.

One persistent problem, of course, is inadequate advising, and the article indicates that "a single counselor may be responsible for up to 1,000 students" at many institutions. It doesn't take long to run into the issue of revenue. The advising gap can be fixed, but there is a cost.

The researchers also recommend that colleges:

• Simplify student choices by creating more-structured programs with a clear default course sequence.
• Teach students, during orientation and first-year "college success" courses, how to use online tools to identify their interests and goals, and to plan steps to meet them.
• Incorporate critical-thinking skills into all general-education courses.
• Set up online systems to allow students to clearly compare programs' costs, requirements, transfer options, and employment outlook.

You will note that many community colleges already do these things. College-success courses are promising and take many forms, but are not mandatory statewide. The challenge is to add new ingredients without adding unnecessary complication. With entering students, especially those whose parents did not attend college, it may be best to keep the choices as simple as possible, if the research is any indication. 

This should not be seen as a romantic yearning for simpler times. We don't live in that world any more and probably never did. And it has nothing to do with rigor in the selected courses. Students are simply more likely to remain focused and engaged when the next objective is clear, and they notice other students like them doing the same thing.

The Case Against Grades

It's grading season, and teachers across the land are scoring, adding, averaging, and listening to an urgent cacophony of voices. "I need an A!" students inform us, as if the syllabus stipulates: "All grades will be based on need." We wonder inevitably if there is a better way, especially with the likely advent of outcomes-based funding.

A recent article in Slate by Michael Thomsen offers up "The Case Against Grades." He believes they lower self-esteem, discourage creativity, and reinforce the class divide. The last point is interesting, since grading was designed to insure that there were no favorites or prejudice in the evaluation of students. The same goes for the SAT, strangely enough. Mr. Thomsen provides an interesting summary of the history of grading, and believes it's time to move on to something else.

But what?

John Taylor Gatto, a one-time New York State Teacher of the Year turned fierce education critic proposed an education system built around "independent study, community service, adventures in experience, large doses of privacy and solitude, [and] a thousand different apprenticeships." Schools built on these values have flourished in the margins of state-funded, graded education throughout the 20th century. The most famous example are Montessori schools, noted for their lack of grades, multiage classes, and extended periods where students can chose their own projects from a selected range of materials. The schools have educated many of today's wealthiest entrepreneurs, including Google's Larry Page and Sergei Brin, Amazon’s Jeff Bezos, Wikipedia creator Jimmy Wales, business management legend Peter Drucker, and video game icon Will Wright.

Much of what the author says relates to K-12 education, but any shift in approach would certainly percolate upward. We've all had wonderful students who came out of the Montessori tradition and many more who were home schooled. But keep in mind that these students, almost by definition, have caring, engaged parents who are, most likely, highly educated themselves (and perhaps able to stay home during the day as well). It's a classic exercise in cherry-picking to tout their success. Most of the accomplished individuals listed above came from privileged backgrounds, at least in terms of parental engagement and education if not great wealth.

Now let's presume the stated approaches of "independent study, community service, adventures in experience, large doses of privacy and solitude, [and] a thousand different apprenticeships," were attempted with everyone instead of grades. What do we do with students who don't show up or perform poorly? "No more adventures for you!"

The author cites the Socratic ideal, too, as if such a paradigm can be applied universally to millions of diverse students. (Not to mention the fact that Socrates was executed. They always leave that part out.)

We use grading, not because it's perfect, but because it beats the alternatives—at least so far.

Gun Bill Passes House with Local Opt-Out

The House on Saturday, May 4, passed the latest version of HB 972 (known presently as the Committee Substitute), one of several guns-on-campus bills introduced during this Regular Session.

Significantly the measure retains the option for institutions—after consulting with administration, faculty, and students—to choose not to allow licensed carriers to bring their weapons on campus. A number of floor amendments were adopted, making the bill more complex. It must still pass the Senate in order to become law.

The local opt-out provision is consistent with the position of TCCTA and the association's recent call for member communication with lawmakers. For background, please see this previous post. As reported here before, other bills relate to allowing licensed carriers to leave their weapons in parked cars on college property.

Since the language of the bill can be confusing, below is a pertinent exchange on legislative intent between its sponsor, Rep. Allen Fletcher (R-Cypress) and Rep. Chris Turner (D-Arlington), from the House Journal:

CSHB 972 - STATEMENT OF LEGISLATIVE INTENT

REPRESENTATIVE C. TURNER: So, I want to make sure I understand—that the body understands—where this bill is right now, because we've adopted several amendments—some of which I think are significant; some, maybe, were not so significant. But, as your bill stands right now, an institution has the ability to opt-out of campus-carry, right?

REPRESENTATIVE FLETCHER: Sure

C. TURNER: Okay. An institution is—help me understand what an institution is. Let's take the UT System, for example. You have several universities in The University of Texas System. Does each institution in that system have its own ability to opt-in or opt-out?

FLETCHER: It's essentially going to be the president of the university who makes that decision.

C. TURNER: The president of the university, okay. So, you could have one school in the UT System decide that they want to have campus-carry, and another school in the UT System decide that they don't want to have it?

FLETCHER: I think that would be the case, yes.

C. TURNER: So, that's your intent?

FLETCHER: That's my intent.

C. TURNER: And then, is—if the university president, after consulting with faculty and students and the other things prescribed for in your bill, makes his or her decision, is that decision in any way appealable?

FLETCHER: I don't have any—there's no reference to that in the bill, and I think that will be up to the university itself. There's going to be regents and other parties in play, but I think that was just alluded to—the president will be the determiner of that.

C. TURNER: You mentioned regents, and that kind of gets to my question. If, let's say a university president, after consulting with faculty, and staff, and students, decides that they're going to opt-out, and someone opposes that decision, can they go to the board of regents—to the chancellor or the board of regents—and try to overturn that university president's decision?

FLETCHER: Well, Chris, in reality, I think, you know, we're chasing rabbit trails here. The reality of it is, all of those parties that are part of the leadership in a university are going to come together and make those kinds of decisions. I can't see a situation where a president is going to decide his university is either opting-in or opting-out and that being changed, publicly. They're going to deal with this in their own meetings, and they r’e going to make those decisions, and then come forward to the public with it.

C. TURNER: Well, I think there's been a number of examples in the news recently, about some—sometimes university presidents have different perspectives on things than their corresponding board of regents, you would agree with that, would you not?

FLETCHER: I've heard that, yes.

C. TURNER: Okay, and university presidents are professional academics and administrators; board of regents are political appointees, are they not?

FLETCHER: Right.

C. TURNER: So, my question is, is the intent of your bill structured in a way so that we keep politics out of it from political appointees, and this decision rests squarely in the hands of the local university, in-house there?

FLETCHER: Yes, that's what I understand. That was my intent.

C. TURNER: That is your intent?

FLETCHER: With no appeal.

C. TURNER: Okay.

FLETCHER: I think that would be up to the leadership.

C. TURNER: Okay.

REMARKS ORDERED PRINTED

Representative C. Turner moved to print remarks between Representative Fletcher and Representative C.Turner.

The motion prevailed.