The following is a concise statement on true student achievement based on tested methods, real-life barriers to success, and the lack of attention being paid to appropriate funding for what we know works in post-secondary education.
Memorandum
November 11, 2009
To: Jan Yoshiwara, State Board for Community and Technical Colleges
From: Lynne Dodson, Chair, AFT Washington Community College Council
Re: Comments on the SBCTC Mission Study task force recommendations
CC: Allan French, Karen Toreson – AFT Washington representatives AFT Washington and WEA Community/Technical College Union Presidents
The AFT Washington Community College Council has a keen interest in recommendations developed by the State Board’s Mission Study Task Force since we represent those at the front lines of ensuring a quality, accessible education for our communities. We appreciate the opportunity to provide feedback on the draft recommendations.
We believe the stated goals of meeting the demand for a well educated and skilled workforce and increasing student success are the critical components of our mission. However, innovation is a means to this end, rather than a goal in and of itself.
Overall, the draft recommendations do not seem to focus enough on how to reach the system goals of meeting demand and student success. As educators, we would like to see more attention paid to encouraging, developing, and supporting well-researched and tested actual practices that increase student success.
The primary reference to student success in the recommendations is in the bullet: “Increase student achievement.” This is our primary goal and mission – yet the only recommendation included in this bullet is to “Reward colleges for increasing student performance” through the Student Achievement program. There is no small body of research on what actually is effective for increasing student achievement - student cohorts, a stable cadre of faculty, small class size, learning communities, access to resources, IBEST, Opportunity Grants. We know that barriers for students include increasing tuition costs, and a lack of support services such as transportation, child care, tutoring, counseling, financial assistance, and multiple jobs.
We don’t lack the data on student success! We do, however, lack recommendations in this document that directly support student achievement. We are also concerned that there does not seem to be a recommendation to evaluate the actual success of the Student Achievement initiative in increasing student achievement, or in evaluating the efficacy of using the achievement points as measures of student achievement. As educators, we know it is possible to have students complete a course without actually meeting the learning objectives of the course – particularly if there is pressure on faculty to pass students to maintain funding levels.
We are also concerned that an over-reliance on the student achievement initiative rather than direct funding of practices known to enhance student achievement will lead to greater disproportionality among colleges. We are concerned with any model that recognizes the importance of adequate funding to develop successful programs but then withholds the funding from colleges that may need it the most.
The mission study recommendations seem to emphasize technology as a solution, rather than technology as a tool. As educators, we are constantly evaluating and modifying our pedagogy and instructional resources to increase student learning. We see technology as a tool in this effort. We also see technology as one type of innovation, but not the only, and not necessarily the best. To the extent that technology assists us in reaching our students, in providing multiple methods for communicating ideas, in facilitating engagement and participation – we use it. We also seek other innovations to help us reach students – learning communities, multi-cultural approaches, service learning, linked courses, writing across the curriculum, portfolios – these are just a few of the innovations faculty are using to secure real student success. Yet there seems to be no attempt to increase attention or funding for these programs. We would like to see less emphasis on technology as the solution, and more emphasis on how the system can bring in resources to support effective innovation through a variety of practices.
We highly recommend that much more attention be paid to recommendations for funding, including support for recruiting and retaining high quality faculty and staff in our colleges.
Strategic recommendations that address how funding will be secured, where additional funding resources might be tapped, and which of the system objectives will take priority in time of scarce resources are not sufficiently addressed in this document.
One way to address this could be to detail how the system will (or if the system can) address some of these recommendations in a time of current anemic funding, or with reduced funding. We have heard around the state that the current funding level is not sustainable for meeting student demand with a high quality of education. We would like to see recommendations on what we can feasibly accomplish given different funding levels, and how we will access adequate resources.
