Gay Garesche: Dennis, you have been teaching math at Phoenix College for the last three to four years. But, before that you supervised the dual enrollment program at RSCC. How did you come to be involved in that program?
Dennis Shaw: Please let me be clear that I've been away from RIO a few years now. Things could have changed. But when I was there, it was a faculty-driven program. I was voted by the faculty there to supervise the program. We started with math and science classes, after high school math teachers who were already certified and teaching at night approached us about teaching dual enrollment courses. The RSCC faculty senate approved all courses that would be taught dual enrollment. Julie Bertch chaired the English department, and she didn't want to do dual enrollment in English to begin with. So, we didn't.
G.G.: Dennis, how did you decide where to do dual enrollment classes?
D.S.: Well, our deans would go out and publicize the courses to the high schools, but we decided what courses and where they would be taught. For example, we decided we'd do a college algebra/trig. course, essentially, a pre-calc course. But, nothing lower than that in math. Then we'd consider the schools. For example at one time we considered a number of schools. We decided that Fountain Hills was the only one at that time that had the faculty and students to do these courses. So, we started two classes there with two different teachers. As it turned out, one of the teachers moved away and the other one decided that she didn't want to continue, so we dropped the program at that school
G.G.: How did you assure the quality in the classes?
D.S.: Well, we did a variety of things. First of all we made sure the teacher was academically prepared to do the class. We'd interview the faculty and decide who would teach the class. Not the high school. . I have been interested to hear that some high school faculty are taking masters degrees in their teaching area rather than in education just so they can teach dual enrollment courses. Of course, we picked the textbook. Well, sometimes in calc., I would give the teacher a choice of three or four texts which were being used in the MCCCD District. Any of them would have been good choices. That gave the teacher some flexibility. Also, I would visit the class as many as six times during a semester. Four times would be spot checks. Then two would be scheduled. We wanted to be sure that it was college instruction that went on in the classroom. Of course, once a teacher had been reviewed that many times, we would visit maybe once a semester after that.
There were other things we did, too. For example, we would have the classes take the AP (Advanced Placement; gives college credit by examination) exam. It was often a morale booster for the faculty members to see how well their students did. These students generally did very well. You know the fact of the matter is that many of these faculty members taught the same course on the college campuses, and frankly, the high school students do better than the college students. And the instructors were tough. Only one time did I have a teacher give a student a "C" in a chemistry class who had received a "2" (in effect, a "D") on the AP exam. I said I didn't want to see that in the future, and it never happened again.
We validated that these students were doing college work in other ways, too. One year we had our chemistry students take a twenty question exam that was distributed by the American Chemical Society for freshman chemistry students. Our dual enrollment students placed one and two among all MCCCD classes that participated. We tracked our students on to ASU, as well. Would you believe that their GPA's actually rose a couple tenths of a percentage point relative to their RIO GPA's.
G.G.: How did you make sure that the high school students were ready to do college work?
D.S.: They had to take the ASSET test. But they also had to have taken the prerequisite courses already.
G.G.: What about courses in history and U.S. government where there is no ASSET test?
D.S.: Well, I didn't set those classes up. I'm not sure how that would be done.
G.G.: I've seen dual enrollment course enrollments in which only two or four students are enrolled for college credit. How can an instructor teach at the college level when that few of the students are taking the course for college credit?
D.S.: Oh, we had a factor. There was a minimum proportion of the students who had to be enrolled for college credit, or we simply wouldn't do the class. A teacher can't have too many high school credit-only students before the instruction won't be at the college level.
G.G.: Weren't you afraid that your tight quality standards might drive high schools to look for a more lenient college with which to do dual enrollment?
D.S.: Well, no. But I am aware that the different colleges establish different arrangements with the different colleges. And I do know of a person who teaches dual enrollment courses for another college that I personally think is not qualified to teach the college course. Clearly, the different colleges have different quality standards.
G.G.: Over the last year or so the Faculty Executive Council has discussed creating a single dual enrollment contract that would be used by all the colleges with any high school with which they intend to do dual enrollment courses. What do you think of that idea?
D.S.: I think that's exactly what we need. It would make sure that the program is faculty-driven. Then we would have a means to maintain quality. It's probably a good idea.
G.G.: There's no question in my mind that there are high school students in Arizona who are ready to do college work. Do we have in place the controls to be sure that we are not giving college credit for what is really high school work?
D.S.: No. I honestly believe that when I was at RSCC, that the dual enrollment courses that I supervised were being taught at the college level. Whether that continues to be true, and is true throughout the District - well, there is nothing in place that assures that that is true.
A draft report by the committee fails to accomplish that goal. To this point the committee seems only to have devised two models prescribing how the District should compensate the colleges for dual enrollment. Furthermore, both compensation models significantly overstate the colleges' costs associated with dual enrollment courses, and therefore, exaggerate the appropriate compensation the District should pay.
The committee should go back to the drawing board to address its charge to deal with the competition problem. Or better yet, perhaps it is the faculty that should devise a single dual enrollment contract. Until we are all bound by the same rules, the competition will not cease.
Erratum:
In an editor's note in the November 1999 Peerpoint it was stated that during the lawsuit in the early 1990s that the judge accepted the RFP to be a contract. In fact, the MCCCD Board stipulated that the RFP is the faculty contract going into the lawsuit.
The high schools believe dual enrollment to be an effective student retention device. Students who might graduate early or take only a class or two to satisfy their senior year graduation requirements are more likely to stick around and take a full load, if some of the credits transfer to the colleges or universities. High school students and their parents have a clear interest in having the students receive college credit for their high school courses, as it makes their college degrees less expensive.
Frankly, MCCCD has been deluded for some time by the notion that our students are our customers and that education is our product. The flaw in this notion is evident to any teacher who has ever wondered why students are happy when a class is canceled. What customer would be happy upon being deprived of the product for which he or she has paid?
A more realistic view is that most students are in school for the purpose of acquiring a good-looking transcript, so as to enhance their future earning potential. Attending classes is not the reason for going to school, it is the price that must be paid to get that transcript. A canceled class represents a reduction in the cost of attaining that goal. The way to keep many students satisfied is to offer fun and easy courses in whatever areas pique students' interests and to give high grades. This is, of course, ultimately a losing strategy for all concerned. Students who confront the community's expectations poorly prepared will rightfully feel that they were cheated and will resent the institution that did not give them what it promised. The value of an education to every person is reduced as the expectation attached to it falls.
Rather than seeing ourselves as sellers of education, we need to conceive of ourselves as artisans, whose job it is to transform students so that they are more socially desirable and useful when they leave our system than they were when they entered it. In this perspective the student is the product and the community is the customer. MCCCD would find this a much more constructive paradigm for considering what courses and under what circumstances our colleges should be offering dual enrollment. When viewed this way, it clear why it is essential to maintain the highest academic standards in all our course offerings, including those offered as dual enrollment.
Universities Which Do Not Accept Dual Enrollment*
Universities Expressing Reservations About Dual Enrollment
States Expressing Reservations About Dual Enrollment
*Source: Brigham Young University. This was a limited survey done in 1997 of 18 universities or, in the case of California, university systems. Grand Canyon University was added by your editor on the basis of local information.
The boardroom was nearly full at the December 14th Board meeting, with standing room only for those arriving late. All employee groups appeared well represented. The topic which drew such crowds was Dr. Waechter's proposal to make EBAC (Employee Benefits Advisory Committee) responsible for recommending all employee benefits policy to the Board. At issue was the usurption of authority of another Board-approved committee, the Common Policies Committee, to approve policies which affect all employee groups. During the employee group presidents' reports, Willie Minor attempted to broach the subject. However, Board president, Linda Rosenthal, rebuffed him, suggesting there would be an opportunity to speak to the issue later on the agenda.
When the EBAC item did come up, the Board allowed the employee group presidents to speak. The faculty, MAT, and PSA presidents each spoke against the proposal. Board member Ed Contreras asked why this opposition. There was a moment's hesitation, as typically a speaker must sign up before the meeting with the Board secretary in order to speak. Mrs. Rosenthal allowed that under the circumstances, individuals could line up at the podium to speak. There was a general rush to the podium.
One individual who eloquently explained faculty's concerns was Barbara Fahey, English faculty at SCC. Mr. Contreras engaged Ms. Fahey with a series of questions. First he asked, why the opposition? Ms. Fahey responded, if a student had submitted this proposal as a paper, she would have graded it quite low. As a description of the role of EBAC, it was too vague. "What does this mean" she queried, "that the Governing Board charges the EBAC to recommend benefit programs which enable employees to be emotionally, socially, physically and intellectually productiveÉ?" Then Mr. Contreras asked, how would you word it? Ms. Fahey responded that was not for her to say, but this definitely was not it. Finally he asked, why aren't you supporting your EBAC members? Ms. Fahey responded that we do support or EBAC members' recommendations concerning our health care provider. But, even the members of EBAC do not support the recommended change in the role of their committee.
When the discussion ended, the Board voted unanimously to table the proposal with the intention of bringing it back at the February 22nd Board meeting. Since that time, Phil Randolph, acting vice-chancellor of Quality and Employee Development, has discussed the issue with the members of the EBAC committee and the presidents of the employee groups. The unanimous opinion of those he polled was that the proposal should be dropped. A proposal to drop the December 14th proposal was presented and passed by the Board at the February 22nd meeting.
MCCCD FACULTY ASSOCIATION 1999-2000 OFFICERS
WILLIE MINOR, PRESIDENT
ROSEMARY KESLER, PRESIDENT-ELECT
TOM BUTLER, SECRETARY
MARK RICHARD, TREASURER
GAY GARESCHE, PEERPOINT EDITOR
FACULTY ASSOCIATION OFFICE
PHONE.....(480)731-8113
PEERPOINT! is the voice of the faculty in the Maricopa County Community College District. We welcome and encourage your suggestions, ideas, and comments. Let us know what you would like to see in PEERPOINT! You can share information with your Senate President, Campus Representative, or contact PEERPOINT! editor, Gay Garesche, 623-845-3701.