Thursday, September 20, 2012

 

Non-Credit Credit?

Why do we insist on teaching developmental classes as if they carried credit?

Right now, developmental classes carry a kind of zombie credit: they’re billed as credits,  they’re tied to the credit hour in terms of scheduling, and they count against credit limits for financial aid.  But they don’t count towards graduation, and, for the most part, they don’t transfer.

In other words, they have most of the downsides of regular credits -- scheduling rigidity, Baumol’s cost disease, and consumption of limited financial aid -- but none of the upsides.  

Hmm.

Lately I’ve been immersed in research on the effects of different financial aid policy changes on student academic performance.  Because that’s how I roll.  Anyway, the feds have a rule that financial aid can cover, at most, 150 percent of the credits required for a given credential.  For a 60 credit associate’s degree, that means an aid limit of 90 credits.  That counts attempted credits, rather than earned credits, so a student who withdraws mid-semester has burned the aid for the courses he didn’t complete.  (There’s some pro-rating, but you get the idea.)  For a student with significant ESL and developmental needs, and maybe a semester with a medical or family issue that required stopping out, it’s easy to run out of aid before finishing the degree.  (The 12 semester limit I mentioned earlier this week applies to the student’s entire academic career, rather than to a given program.  In other words, if the student transfers on for a bachelor’s, the time spent getting the associate’s counts against the 12 semesters.)

Where the 150 percent rule gets more difficult is with shorter-term certificates.  The folks who are trying to convert community colleges into job training centers -- President Obama, I’m looking at youuu...-- are all atwitter about quick-turnaround programs that can get students from unemployment into jobs, post-haste.  Since displaced workers have concrete needs and limited unemployment benefits, the idea is to have community colleges build “stackable,” customized, one-year-or-less programs that will make students employable.  (“Stackable” means that the credits earned toward the certificate are applicable toward a degree program later, should the student choose to matriculate.  Stack some more credits on top, and you have a degree.)  

When they’re designed well, and targeted in the right areas for the local job market, short-term certificates can make a great deal of sense.  But when the same 150 percent rule applies to short-term certificates as applies to degrees, then the margin for remediation gets even smaller.  A twenty-four credit certificate, for example, would allow only a 12 credit margin for anything.  If a student has significant developmental and/or ESL needs -- which many displaced workers do -- it’s easy to blast right through that limit, even without failing anything.

But if remedial and ESL needs were addressed in other ways, then the 150 percent rule wouldn’t be nearly as limiting.  And we wouldn’t be time-bound, so we could look at innovative uses of boot camps, immersion experiences, MOOCs, or whatever other permutations seem to make sense.  

Maybe if the feds would recalibrate the institutional incentives, to move from inputs to outputs.  How innovative would community colleges become if money were suddenly tied to how many students reached college-ready level, rather than paying for all the time it takes to get them there?

Hmm.  The transition period would be bumpy -- zombie-killing excursions typically are -- but I’m thinking there may be an upside to this.  The alternative is to let the zombies eat all the financial aid, while students continue to flunk out.  What if we drove a stake through the heart of the zombie credit, and instead paid colleges by results?

Comments:
I've been trying to figure out how it would work if the K-12 system gave us one year's worth of per-student funding for remediation of their failures instead of using Pell at all ... since that is quite a bit more than $5500 per year supplied by Pell grants. Like they were enrolled for year 13 of HS while at the CC.
 
What would be the negatives of simply removing the credits for these? Is the existence of credit required for financial aid? Would there be a significant change in the Dean Dad CC cost/benefit analysis if these courses were free or non-free but so low in cost (cup of coffee expense?) that financial aid wasn't necessary?

If they can't count towards graduation, then they presumably can't affect accreditation either. Right? That must allow for flexibility, if the sponsoring depts wished to explore it.

I certainly am missing something key here. I look forward to reading the corrections below.
 
When we have third parties paying for things, the price naturally goes up. Basic economics. Like where you are going.
 
Our students use those faux credit hours to stay on the good side of some rule along the lines of "must be enrolled for at least N credit hours to be eligible for health insurance and the institutional scholarship given to almost all in-state, full-time students."
 
Anonymous 3:14 has it right- any hours count toward full time enrollment, even if those hours don't count toward graduation. To expand upon this further, these "hours" count for athletic eligibility, as well.

I think you should read between the lines of your own initial explanation, though. Federal Pell pays for 150% of hours that count toward the completion of a degree (or certificate). Remedial hours haven't counted against the 150% total because they didn't count towards degree completion/graduation. This loophole gets closed when the 12 semester rule goes into effect, though.

As far as "stackability" is concerned, almost all the Associate of Applied Science degrees I've seen (outside Allied Health degrees) have had certificate "exit points" or "milestones" or whatever you want to call them along the way that, when stacked, can form a degree.

C1
 
I actually think it would be better to take remediation that takes more than 1 term to finish out of the CC system all together.

In California we used to fund adult schools for people who needed high school level skills out of the K-12 system. This allocation separated the cost from the CC system - so remediation could be limited on those campuses because anyone who really needed basics could go to adult ed. Adult ed was free and it allowed people to engage in the short term training programs that the DOL loves. The teachers in the program were either specially trained folks in adult ed or teachers pulled out of the K-12 system. About 2 years ago, they changed the rules and allowed school districts to seize adult ed funds for regular K-12 budgets. Many of the programs closed to help prop up our K-12 system and thousands of adult learners tried to turn to our CC's for help. This has been horrific for everyone involved because the CC's have been shedding enrollment as fast as possible.

I really think that limiting college enrollment to college level courses would be better than trying to get the CC system to engage in a prolonged mea culpa for the sins of K-12. But you’d have to keep your adult ed intact and right now, those folks have no one looking out for them in any meaningful way.
 
I've been trying to figure out how it would work if the K-12 system gave us one year's worth of per-student funding for remediation of their failures instead of using Pell at all ... since that is quite a bit more than $5500 per year supplied by Pell grants.

Up here in my part of the Great White, a school board gets $5000 per student. This has to cover everything, which means that what a school gets per student is quite a bit less.
 
Yes, let's punish the people working at K-12 for our decision to cram NCLB down their throats. That's a great idea.

 
I view it as asking the State to pay for their mistakes in implementing that system, even if it is an internal transfer.

I don't actually expect them to pay up, but I'll only agree to that when they admit responsibility for math standards that are a joke.

As for the Great White North observation, I know that the average state funds going to local districts in Michigan are greater than the amounts involved in my state, and thus greater than the Pell amounts, but they are more variable. Some property-poor districts get almost double the federal Pell amount, while those with high property values per student get less than half.
 
There are no "mistakes" in implementing NCLB. It works as designed.

 
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?