GENERAL EDUCATION IN AN AGE
OF STUDENT MOBILITY
Can We Work with Our Legislatures?
by Eduardo Padron
Unfortunately, the system-wide coherence that Bob Shoenberg seeks
is easier said than done. In fact, there exists a pervasive mindset
that works against achieving it, important as the goal may be. Institutional
missions differ; viewpoints within each institution vie to be heard;
and legislatures impose resource and time restrictions that differ
radically from institutions' perceived needs.
We may strive to create "smooth” and "seamless”
roads for our students, taking the bumps-the credits that don't
transfer or meet university departmental requirements-out of
their ride through higher education. However, as Shoenberg argues,
the currency of the credit hour has taken precedence over intellectual
purpose and curricular coherence. Thus, our students make choices
based on ease of transfer, often foregoing the more challenging
or intellectually satisfying courses of study.
For the most part I agree with Shoenberg's reform agenda. But
I would also suggest that we devote special attention to the state
mandates imposed on many of our systems. Specifically, we must do
more to educate our legislatures-the mission of the community
college often remains under-appreciated, and the resource requirements
remain unmet.
At the same time, though, we must also satisfy those legislatures.
Despite their lack of appreciation, they remain our primary support;
we cannot view them as adversaries. If we want to advise them regarding
the most productive ways to proceed, we need to develop dependable
relationships and assume a very proactive posture. That takes time,
energy, and an effort to develop contacts.
Here in Florida, for instance, the legislature decided that 15%
of funding for A.S. programs must be "earned back” through
performance-based funding. We have no argument with the concept
itself, but we do see a need to lobby for performance milestones
that are relevant and fair for our students. For example, we believe
that accomplishments in developmental English, basic skills, and
short-term training ought to be given greater priority. Overall
funding should also take into account the specifics of our student
population-economically disadvantaged, disabled, limited English
proficiency, and welfare-to-work students require special attention
and added resources. In the same vein, operating in an urban locale
requires a cost differential that compensates the institution for
the higher cost of operations.
These sorts of nuts and bolts decisions can add up to significant
gains for community colleges, and it's important to weigh in
on them. But the bigger issue has to do with establishing respect
for the institution's mission and goals. In the long run, that
must be the principle that guides our relationship with the legislature.
|
