SB 1143 Discussion Board
ASCCC wants to answer your questions and hear your concerns related to the Student Success Task Force recommendations. Please post them here. If we don't have the answer, we will work to get an answer for you. Your participation is very important.
More information on SB 1143
Comments
How to lie with statistics
The ARCC statistics are meaningless.
First, if you look at the relationship between variables and student success, they are extremely low. So, whether a school has one factor, say, local ESL population and completion rates, the actual numbers are not that meaningful in relation to one another.
Second, some of the numbers are irrelevant. In the case of City College of San Francisco, one factor is the "local population of people with Bachelor's degrees." Well, we have a lot of young single adults here in SF who graduated from college and are working downtown. They don't go to CCSF! They don't have children who are attending CCSF? So... why is that statistic included in our student success numbers?
The ARCC statistics were developed by people who may mean well, but really, to determine policy based on low correlations and spurious relationships is not going to help anyone. We'd be a little better off buying lottery tickets and randomly awarding them to different colleges based on their team colors.
ARCC Data
ARCC data include data related to the the college and data that provide a reflection of the community in which the college resides. I'm not aware of any attempts to measure a community college's "success" based on aspects of its general population. Features of the general population provide a context for the data. A more meaningful context would be features of the college population. The proposed "scorecards" differ from the current ARCC data as there is no intent to make comparisons across colleges. The "scorecard" is intended to provide comparisons of measures at the college over time. And, as it has been discussed, the college would determine what measures are most meaningful/useful and be permitted to provide context to that data.
Proposed Legislation re additional requirements BOG fee waiver
The proposed legislation will add:
The fee requirements … shall be waived for any student who:
Under current rules students may receive fee waivers for any educational objectives, including “formulate career interest,” or “educational development.” The proposed legislation does not permit such students to receive fee waivers.
Under Education Code §70901(A) of the Education Code and Title 5 Regulation §55033, all students who do not meet standards of academic progress standards are subject to being placed on probation and dismissed. The proposed legislation directs the Board of Governors to specify additional criteria to be met by students receiving BOG fee waivers.
In current law, there is no maximum unit cap for any student.
The proposals will put additional requirements on students applying for fee waivers that are not asked of students who can afford to pay fees.
There are few more facts that we need to consider to understand the actual consequences of this proposal.
1) California residents who pay fees are subsidized, that is, the fee doesn’t cover the full cost of instruction. So fee-paying Californians will continue to be subsidized for taking courses to “formulate career interest,” or “educational development” or any goal, not just the goals listed in the proposed legislation. Fee-paying Californians will continue to be subsidized beyond the unit cap or if they are not meeting academic progress but have not been dismissed.
2) The poorest students cannot enroll in classes without fee waivers with the result that these students will be denied access to classes when their fee waiver is denied.
3) Putting together 1 and 2, we see that this proposal will definitely result in the following situation. Student A and student B both want to take a class to formulate career interests. Student A is well off, he will enroll in the class, pay fees, and California taxpayers will subsidize the cost. Student B is indigent. Student B’s request for a fee waiver will be denied. Student B cannot pay the fees herself (that’s why she applied for the fee waiver). Student B will not get the same opportunity that the taxpayers are subsidizing for Student A.
On November 5, the ASCCC in plenary session resolved that the Academic Senate for California Community Colleges recognize that recommendation 3.2 (as of September 30, 2011) of the California Community Colleges Task Force on Student Success will have the same effect as establishing different academic policies for students based on their differing ability to pay fees; … and Resolved, That the Academic Senate for California Community Colleges oppose recommendations that establish different academic policies for students based on their differing abilities to pay. (07.03.2011)
Language Issues
The language is in draft form and has many issues. One of the many is the point that you have made here - at no point in the SSTF discussions was a distinction made to suggest that students with a "a degree, certificate, transfer, or career advancement goal" should be a higher priority than, for example, a student wanting to learn English. In other words, this is an issue that needs to be addressed in the context of priority and BOGFWs. Resolution 7.01 (F11) states that "Resolved, That the Academic Senate for California Community Colleges work with the Chancellor’s Office to define appropriate conditions, including considerations of impact on equity and access that would allow students with financial need to continue receiving a BOG fee waiver that would be based on satisfactory progress toward academic goals." Issues of equity and access have not been addressed - nor does the bill language offer assurances that they would be.
First SB 1443 Discussion Board Questions and Comments
Please post your questions or comments related to the Student Sucess Task Force here - we will do our best to respond in a timely manner.