The State of the College: Academics 2010
A White Paper Prepared by the Senate of the Faculty and Professional Staff at Bristol Community College
For more than four decades, Bristol Community College has done much good for its students, and for the communities of southeastern Massachusetts which it serves. This White Paper will attempt to delineate many of the activities and programs of which the college has good reason to be proud. As one constituent put it, the college "provides opportunity for students who need it most—[those with] academic weakness, financial hardship—and moves them to success in many cases” ("Survey of Constituents." Sept.-Dec. 2009). Yet as it approaches its first half-century, challenged by an economic environment that is as severe as any since the Great Depression, by a student population remarkably diverse in its level of preparedness to do college-level work, and by unprecedented growth, Bristol shows signs of drift from its core mission and values. This White Paper will take note of those signs and try to account for the reasons. Finally, this Paper will offer recommendations for the future, calling for a return to the College's core values, mission, and vision, even as it calls for the College's adaptation to meet the realities of the new century. In achieving these ends, the Paper weaves together data and grounds them in the actual day-to-day experiences of our students, faculty, and staff. We believe that the mission of the College is activated by faculty and staff.
This White Paper draws upon data gathered from a variety of sources. Among the public documents consulted for the White Paper: the NEASC Fifth Year Report; the College's e-newsletter, the Bristol Buzz; the Strategic Plan; Vision Statement; Statement of Core Values; and Mission Statement. In addition, the White Paper gathers data from Senate-generated surveys and testimonies of Faculty/Professional Staff, a survey of students (conducted as part of the Community College Study of Student Engagement or CCSSE), institutional research (The Integrated Postsecondary Education Data Feedback Report or IPEDS). Finally, the Paper constructs a broader context by referencing the CCSSE's national data and a range of published studies and reports on community colleges.
Students
According to the NEASC Fifth Year Report from January 2009, 8,100 students were enrolled at BCC during the Fall semester of 2008 (NEASC 5). Of that number, 47 percent were full-time students and 53 percent were part-time students. Sixty percent of enrolled student were females and 46.7 percent were above the age of 21. Of the 8,100 students enrolled, 12.5 percent were minorities (5). Most of the minority population were from the Cape Verde Islands, Brazil or of Hispanic/Portuguese descent. The number of families in Fall River and New Bedford who consider English to be their second language was two times greater than the Massachusetts state average (5).
Consistent with national trends, a majority of Bristol students, encompassing both native and non-native speakers of English, require pre-college (or developmental) classes. In English, 68 percent require a course in basic writing, while 88 percent need to take at least one developmental math course (NEASC 5).
Moreover, the students who come to the College confront the staggering challenge of balancing school and work. Most students at the College work in excess of 21 hours a week (NEASC 5).
Enrollment
Enrollment has surged at the College. As the NEASC Fifth Year Report states:
"The College has experienced substantial growth in numbers of enrolled students and full-time equivalent students since the Self-Study. The number of full-time equivalent students increased by 8 percent from Fall 2006 to Fall 2007, and then by 12 percent from Fall 2007 to Fall 2008" (NEASC 29).
In September of 2008, the New Bedford campus reported an impressive increase in enrollment of 23 percent, and, during the same period, Attleboro saw an astonishing 49 percent increase (John Sbrega. "From the President." Bristol Buzz 29 Sept. 2008). Growth has occurred at such an accelerated pace that the College is reported to have the fastest growing enrollment of all community colleges in the state and among the highest in the Northeast (Grant Welker. "BCC Gets High Grades for Enrollment Figures." The Herald News 15 Jan. 2010. Web. 17 Jan. 2010).
Those statistics reflect enrollment in face-to-face classes. In addition, e-learning enrollment has risen dramatically from 1,657 in Fall 2007 to 2,460 in Fall 2009, an increase of nearly 50 percent ("Bristol Community College Fact Sheet Fall 2009").
Academic Support
Increased enrollment and a diverse student demographic represent critical challenges for the College. In many respects, Bristol has put forth initiatives and resources to meet the challenges. For example, Bristol is the recipient of several adult basic education grants and operates adult basic education programs meeting the developmental needs of students with limited literacy and numeracy skills. The programs offer classes at a variety of skill levels from basic literacy through preparation for the High School Equivalency Diploma (the G.E.D. or General Education Development). Classes administered by the College are held at the Fall River and Attleboro campuses and at the Taunton satellite. In addition, those preparing for the GED Diploma are encouraged to apply for the "Step Up to College" program that provides transition support for GED graduates wishing to matriculate in degree programs.
The federally funded TRIO program provides academic and counseling support services to students who are the first in their families to attend college, have disabilities, or are second language speakers. QUEST supports specifically designed lab-style classes in reading, writing, and mathematics to enable identified students to reach college level skills. The program provides intensive advising to encourage retention and transfer and was cited among the positives of the College several times by faculty and staff in the "Survey of Constituents” conducted by the Senate in Fall 2009.
Strong academic support is also provided through the Tutoring and Academic Support Center (TASC) and the College's Writing Center. TASC, staffed by peer tutors, offers both one-on-one tutoring in a wide array of subject matters and Supplemental Instruction (SI). The Writing Center provides assistance for students with writing regardless of the subject that generates the work. The Writing Center is staffed with faculty (mostly part-time) and peer tutors. Both the TASC and the Writing Center were also cited repeatedly as college strengths in the “Survey of Constituents." E-tutoring is available through the Connecticut Consortium.
To complement this impressive array of services, "Connections Services" assists students who are in academic jeopardy and most at risk to be unsuccessful in their studies--dismissed and probationary students--connecting them to the services they most need on campus. It has one full-time coordinator and five part-time faculty advisers per semester, plus one 8-hour per week clerical helper. Like the other support services mentioned above, "Connections Services" received multiple references in the "Survey of Constituents" as a signficant college resource.
Despite its best efforts to bring such services to students, however, the College faces this central irony: students who must balance academic needs and the ever increasing demands of the workplace have little time to make use of such services. The College is not atypical in this respect. The most recent Community College Survey of Student Engagement (CCSSE) shows nationally the scope of the challenge facing the College: 43 percent of students acknowledged that so-called “skill labs” such as writing and math are “very important.” However, a mere 14 percent stated that they used such labs “often” and 37 percent “rarely or never” (“Committing to Student Engagement: Reflecting on CCSSE’s First Five Years, 2007 Findings” Community College Survey of Student Engagement. 13). The difficulty of encouraging lab use is real and extensive, here and elsewhere.
That challenge has been heightened by the College's expansion to campuses in New Bedford and Attleboro, both of which have experienced significant increases in enrollment, as we reported above. Libraries on both newer campuses have few resources in terms of both materials and staffing. No writing center per se exists in New Bedford, while the center in Attleboro is staffed by one full-time and one part-time faculty member and a peer tutor. Fall River's campus, by contrast, boasts the Eileen Farley Learning Resources Center and a Writing Center that is staffed by several full- and part-time faculty tutors as well as a significant number of peer tutors. The discrepancy in the level of academic support across campuses is confirmed in the Fifth Year Report when it references "perceived inequities among the campus locations" (20). Belying the College's claim in the Report that a "concerted effort has been made to address perceived inequities among the campus locations" (20) is this reality: the staffing at both Attleboro and New Bedford campuses remains inadequate to meet the demands of growing student populations at those sites. One constituent offered this commentary regarding the challenges at the Attleboro campus:
"Attleboro needs to offer adequate student support services to students who need them. For example, there is no QUEST program for students at the developmental level. Developmental … students [also] need more one-to-one support with supplemental instruction to help them develop reading, writing and math skills. Many QUEST-eligible students in Attleboro are forced to 'make do' with whatever tutoring is available. This does not satisfy their needs; they may end up withdrawing from the course” ("Survey of Constituents." Sept.-Dec. 2009).
Academic support depends as well on campus conditions that make such support possible. Regarding the New Bedford campus, these reflections were provided by faculty/staff:
“If there were a fire [in the Annex in New Bedford], it would be hard to get out. A student in a wheelchair couldn’t get down to her class, [she was missing the once-a-week classes] and [the class] had to be moved.”
“At times, there is no toilet paper and there are no markers for the whiteboard. [Students] don’t get the same level of services. . . ." ("Survey of Constituents." Sept.-Dec. 2009)
Student Retention and Persistence
The College reports that, between the years 1997 and 2007, students' "Fall to Fall" retention rate stood at 63.3 percent ("Bristol Community College Fact Sheet Fall 2009"). As of 2006, the overall graduation rates, according to the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System, registered at 27 percent, with a mere 5 percent of Black students and 3 percent of Hispanic students graduating (IPEDS Data Feedback Report 2006: 3). While the retention and graduation rates compare favorably with other community colleges within the state (see John Sbrega. "From the President." Bristol Buzz 29 Sept. 2008), the fact remains that fully a third of all students do not continue from one Fall semester to another and that nearly three quarters fail to obtain a degree. We recognize that not all students who come to the College aspire to graduate. Many, for example, begin their studies at the College with the clear intention to transfer to a state college or university before obtaining an Associates' degree. But the rate of students transferring to four-year institutions stands at only 15 percent (IPEDS Feedback Report of 2008: 4). If we combine both criteria--graduation and transfer--the number falls well short of 50 percent. Should we be pleased by that result?
To its credit, the College has sought ways to improve both retention and persistence. The most recent Title III effort, "The Connected College," was initiated to assist the first-year student, since the first year is crucial for student retention, focusing on the revision of the first-year experience course (CSS 11 - College Success Seminar) and of the so-called "gateway courses." For "gateway courses," "toolboxes'" were developed for instructors, to encourage use of strategies enabling student retention and success. Orientation has been expanded from a single day to three days as well, in an effort to ease students' transition to college and thus enhance their potential for success.
Yet addressing the problems of student retention and persistence requires more bold and coordinated efforts than the College has to date put forward. For instance, despite achieving success nationally, learning communities have failed to thrive at the College in part because of a lack of coordination between the academic and enrollment service areas and because the College has not appointed someone whose primary responsibility it is to lead the charge. Such is the case despite the significant research attesting to the impact of learning communities on student retention and achievement. The learning community model reflects the best practices around the country in a number of community colleges as well as in four-year schools and is advocated by scholars such as Vincent Tinto who have spent years studying the most effective retention models. In a major work on learning communities, Barbara Smith and colleagues confirm that Tinto's "research demonstrated learning community effectiveness with extensive quantitative and qualitative detail, confirming that students in learning communities persist in school and learn more" (Learning Communities 2004: 58). In a recent study of learning communities at two- and four-year institutions, Engstrom and Tinto report: "We found that academically unprepared students in the learning communities were significantly more engaged in a variety of activities than similar students [not enrolled in learning communities] at their campuses" and that "students in the learning community programs were more apt to persist to the following year than their institutional peers" ("Access without Support Is Not Opportunity." Change Jan./Feb. 2008: 47). In a landmark study of community colleges, Grubb and associates also concluded that the "advantages of learning communities are enormous, and some of the most innovative and engaging teaching takes place in them" (Honored but Invisible, 1999: 263).
Advisement
Advisement remains the College's Achilles' heel. The members of the advisement staff have not been able to keep pace with either the growth of student enrollment or the shift from a mostly full-time faculty to a predominantly part-time faculty. With fewer full-time faculty to conduct advisement and with a similarly understaffed advisement office, it has become nearly impossible to provide the advisement that so many of the College's students require. One constituent gave this assessment of advisement:
“Advisement, while improving slowly, is still an area I think we need to work on. Lack of full-time staff in the Advisement Center has always been a concern, but with the recent ruling that professional staff cannot work as advisors outside their normal full-time job functions, lack of staff, especially experienced staff, has become an issue with both our full-time and part-time advisement staff. We really need to act on the findings of the Advisement Roundtables [faculty and staff sessions designed to develop solutions to advisement difficulties, Nov.-Dec. 2006] and the CAS [Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education] results to strengthen our advisement program in my opinion.” ("Survey of Constituents." Sept.-Dec. 2009)
The College has attempted to strengthen advisement in a number of ways, which include conducting college round tables on the subject (see previous paragraph), sending along advisee lists to faculty advisers sooner, and streamlining the process to include a narrower group of students required to be advised. But the fact remains that too few students, even though required, make use of the advisement offered, and many who might benefit from being advised are shut out of routine advisement. The results of the Senate-sponsored "Survey of Constituents” attest to the importance of advisement to faculty and staff: “Advisement” is mentioned in the survey responses repeatedly.
Data from the Community College Survey of Student Engagement (CCSSE) confirm lukewarm student support of advisement: When asked in the survey how satisfied they were with the advisement given at the College, students reported a mean score of 2.12, with 1 being "not at all," 2 "somewhat," and 3 "very" ("Bristol Community College Means." CCSSE 2009). When asked how often they used the advisement services, students reported out a score of 1.69, with 1 equaling "rarely/never," 2 "sometimes," and 3 "often" (Rhonda Gabovitch and Laura Hayes West. "Support for Learners Benchmark Summary Report." CCSSE March 2008: 8).
Student Retention and Persistence
The College reports that, between the years 1997 and 2007, students' "Fall to Fall" retention rate stood at 63.3 percent ("Bristol Community College Fact Sheet Fall 2009"). As of 2006, the overall graduation rates, according to the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System, registered at 27 percent, with a mere 5 percent of Black students and 3 percent of Hispanic students graduating (IPEDS Data Feedback Report 2006: 3). While the retention and graduation rates compare favorably with other community colleges within the state (see John Sbrega. "From the President." Bristol Buzz 29 Sept. 2008), the fact remains that fully a third of all students do not continue from one Fall semester to another and that nearly three quarters fail to obtain a degree. We recognize that not all students who come to the College aspire to graduate. Many, for example, begin their studies at the College with the clear intention to transfer to a state college or university before obtaining an Associates' degree. But the rate of students transferring to four-year institutions stands at only 15 percent (IPEDS Feedback Report of 2008: 4). If we combine both criteria--graduation and transfer--the number falls well short of 50 percent. Should we be pleased by that result?
To its credit, the College has sought ways to improve both retention and persistence. The most recent Title III effort, "The Connected College," was initiated to assist the first-year student, since the first year is crucial for student retention, focusing on the revision of the first-year experience course (CSS 11 - College Success Seminar) and of the so-called "gateway courses." For "gateway courses," "toolboxes'" were developed for instructors, to encourage use of strategies enabling student retention and success. Orientation has been expanded from a single day to three days as well, in an effort to ease students' transition to college and thus enhance their potential for success.
Yet addressing the problems of student retention and persistence requires more bold and coordinated efforts than the College has to date put forward. For instance, despite achieving success nationally, learning communities have failed to thrive at the College in part because of a lack of coordination between the academic and enrollment service areas and because the College has not appointed someone whose primary responsibility it is to lead the charge. Such is the case despite the significant research attesting to the impact of learning communities on student retention and achievement. The learning community model reflects the best practices around the country in a number of community colleges as well as in four-year schools and is advocated by scholars such as Vincent Tinto who have spent years studying the most effective retention models. In a major work on learning communities, Barbara Smith and colleagues confirm that Tinto's "research demonstrated learning community effectiveness with extensive quantitative and qualitative detail, confirming that students in learning communities persist in school and learn more" (Learning Communities 2004: 58). In a recent study of learning communities at two- and four-year institutions, Engstrom and Tinto report: "We found that academically unprepared students in the learning communities were significantly more engaged in a variety of activities than similar students [not enrolled in learning communities] at their campuses" and that "students in the learning community programs were more apt to persist to the following year than their institutional peers" ("Access without Support Is Not Opportunity." Change Jan./Feb. 2008: 47). In a landmark study of community colleges, Grubb and associates also concluded that the "advantages of learning communities are enormous, and some of the most innovative and engaging teaching takes place in them" (Honored but Invisible, 1999: 263).
Advisement
Advisement remains the College's Achilles' heel. The members of the advisement staff have not been able to keep pace with either the growth of student enrollment or the shift from a mostly full-time faculty to a predominantly part-time faculty. With fewer full-time faculty to conduct advisement and with a similarly understaffed advisement office, it has become nearly impossible to provide the advisement that so many of the College's students require. One constituent gave this assessment of advisement:
“Advisement, while improving slowly, is still an area I think we need to work on. Lack of full-time staff in the Advisement Center has always been a concern, but with the recent ruling that professional staff cannot work as advisors outside their normal full-time job functions, lack of staff, especially experienced staff, has become an issue with both our full-time and part-time advisement staff. We really need to act on the findings of the Advisement Roundtables [faculty and staff sessions designed to develop solutions to advisement difficulties, Nov.-Dec. 2006] and the CAS [Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education] results to strengthen our advisement program in my opinion.” ("Survey of Constituents." Sept.-Dec. 2009)
The College has attempted to strengthen advisement in a number of ways, which include conducting college round tables on the subject (see previous paragraph), sending along advisee lists to faculty advisers sooner, and streamlining the process to include a narrower group of students required to be advised. But the fact remains that too few students, even though required, make use of the advisement offered, and many who might benefit from being advised are shut out of routine advisement. The results of the Senate-sponsored "Survey of Constituents” attest to the importance of advisement to faculty and staff: “Advisement” is mentioned in the survey responses repeatedly.
Data from the Community College Survey of Student Engagement (CCSSE) confirm lukewarm student support of advisement: When asked in the survey how satisfied they were with the advisement given at the College, students reported a mean score of 2.12, with 1 being "not at all," 2 "somewhat," and 3 "very" ("Bristol Community College Means." CCSSE 2009). When asked how often they used the advisement services, students reported out a score of 1.69, with 1 equaling "rarely/never," 2 "sometimes," and 3 "often" (Rhonda Gabovitch and Laura Hayes West. "Support for Learners Benchmark Summary Report." CCSSE March 2008: 8).
Staffing
The College has turned to staffing its academic positions with an ever-increasing number of contingent or part-time faculty, accompanied by, in real terms, a diminishing number of full-time faculty. In its Fifth Year Report to NEASC, the College presents a faculty profile, contrasting full- and part-time faculty ratios every year from 2005 to 2009 ("Faculty Profile." NEASC Fifth Year Report 2009: 15). In 2005, full-time faculty numbered 104; part-time faculty 428. In 2009, full-time faculty stood at 96; part-time faculty at 517. The picture becomes even more imbalanced when we consider credits taught by full- and part-time instructors. According to a study of the Fall 2007 Master Schedule, part-timers accounted for 74.2 percent of all credits taught that semester; full-time faculty, 25.8 percent (Greg Sethares. "A Report of the Number of Credits Taught at BCC during the Fall 2007 Semester." 2008).
Staffing has simply not kept up with the College's explosive enrollment. A constituent provided this pointed observation: “We open the doors here [in Fall River] and on branch campuses to increasing numbers of students but staff and resources are rarely increased. In [my area] we have fewer staff now than we did several years ago, and far fewer than when I started here [many] years ago. We all live the cliché of doing more with less, but at a certain point the reality is that we do less with less” ("Survey of Constituents." Sept-Dec. 2009). Many other constituents passionately addressed the need for more faculty and staff in their responses to the survey.
To meet the demand, the College has chosen to rely on an increasing number of contingent or part-time faculty. The fact has become a defining feature of the College, affecting nearly every facet of the academic mission here, including advisement, retention, standards, and graduation rates. While we acknowledge the valuable work done by the adjunct faculty at the College, we are bound to acknowledge the well-documented research attesting to the impact of disproportionate, part-time faculty employment on students' ability to graduate (Daniel Jacoby. "Effects of Part-Time Faculty on Community College Graduation Rates." Journal of Higher Education 2006: 1081-1104); on students' likelihood of dropping out of introductory or "gateway courses" taught by adjunct faculty (David Glenn. "Keep Adjuncts Away from Intro Courses." The Chronicle of Higher Education 4 Apr. 2008); on the success of learning communities (Thomas Bailey et al. "Improving Student Attainment in Community Colleges: Institutional Characteristics and Policies." Community College Research Center, Teacher's College, Nov. 2004: 9); on mentoring and advisement (Ernst Benjamin. "How Over-Reliance on Contingent Appointments Diminishes Faculty Involvement in Student Learning." Peer Review Fall 2002 5.1: 4-11); and on faculty role in governance (Robin Wilson. "Downturn Threatens the Faculty Role in Running Colleges." The Chronicle of Higher Education 6 Feb. 2009).
We note these increasingly common scenarios, which are likely to become even more familiar, in the light of such findings: Students have difficulty tracking down their part-time instructors to talk about a quiz because the instructors, burdened by their status as “gypsies,” are traveling to another college's classroom. Faculty representation on college committees is diminished because, while committees have proliferated to meet the increasingly complex matter of college governance, full-time faculty positions have not; in fact, they have declined. Communications regarding important academic policies cannot be effectively delivered to and discussed by adjunct faculty, since, as they are not paid to be present, they do not typically attend department, divisional, college-wide, or committee meetings.
We recognize that the bulk of the teaching responsibility at the College is undertaken now by adjunct faculty: that must be acknowledged and adjuncts' dedication applauded. Yet these adjuncts are paid far less per course than their full-time counterparts. And, unlike full-timers, adjuncts receive no health benefits (one constituent noted, “We take advantage of the part timers, giving them no benefits and yet requiring much of them” ("Survey of Constituents." Sept-Dec. 2009). The staffing, as currently configured at the college, serves few well, least of all, students.
Governance
In a study of adult and developmental programs in 2005, the National Center for Developmental Education (NCDE) found that the most effective programs had leaders that "shared a collaborative approach to program management." The study continues: "Problems were addressed collectively and solutions agreed through consensus. In interviews each of the leaders expressed the view that their primary job was to insure that their faculty and staff had the resources to do their jobs properly. They did not view their role as having to 'supervise subordinates.' As a result faculty perceived themselves as being empowered to make professional decisions regarding student learning. This appeared to contribute to high morale and productivity among faculty and staff" (Hunter Boylan. "A Shared Purpose--Adult and Developmental Education Programs." Viewpoints: Exploring and Expanding Education Discussion in New England. Nellie Mae Education Foundation, 2005: 2). This finding can be writ large to the whole institution. The trend here at the College is towards the opposite, with substantive decisions being made at the top resulting in a feeling of disempowerment and low morale throughout the institution.
Among the examples that expertise is not recognized is the constant cry for improved advisement--from the professional staff who work in advisement and who oversee the advisement endeavors of the College, from faculty, and, as we have seen, from students as well. At the November 2, 2009 Senate meeting, several constituents spoke clearly to this issue. Senate President Jeanne Grandchamp referenced the Advisement Roundtable discussions, initiated by the President as a college-wide effort to improve advisement. At the Roundtable sessions, much useful material was gathered from staff, faculty, and administration and yet much has not been implemented and has, as a consequence, become dated. When parties are asked for their input in the spirit of shared governance, especially when the input could directly affect the quality of students' experiences at the college, it is difficult to have them feel they are part of a shared governance system if most of their recommendations are not addressed in some way--accepted, accepted with modification, or declined with rationale.
Further evidence of an erosion of shared governance can be seen in the committee system. While it is understood that administration proffers a liaison to each of the standing committees for the purpose of advising the committees, the liaison's role is noticeably expanding. Several constituents noted that information usually presented by the Academic Standards Committee was presented by an Associate Vice President of Academic Affairs during the first half of the division meeting on October 16, 2009. Are the chairs of committees potentially being replaced by administration in their presentation of committee work to faculty and staff? If so, why, and what will this do to shared governance and morale?
Recently, decisions have been made regarding the location of certain labs that provide academic support. While in one case, the faculty involved was notified of the change, in another similar situation, the faculty member in charge was not briefed. In both cases, the faculty members were not asked for their input, despite their obvious expertise and desire to assist students and to promote student success.
Further evidence of an erosion of shared governance can be seen in the committee system. While it is understood that administration proffers a liaison to each of the standing committees for the purpose of advising the committees, the liaison's role is noticeably expanding. Several constituents noted that information usually presented by the Academic Standards Committee was presented by an Associate Vice President of Academic Affairs during the first half of the division meeting on October 16, 2009. Are the chairs of committees potentially being replaced by administration in their presentation of committee work to faculty and staff? If so, why, and what will this do to shared governance and morale?
Recently, decisions have been made regarding the location of certain labs that provide academic support. While in one case, the faculty involved was notified of the change, in another similar situation, the faculty member in charge was not briefed. In both cases, the faculty members were not asked for their input, despite their obvious expertise and desire to assist students and to promote student success.
Among the College's guiding principles is a commitment to Integrity, which, according to the College's Statement of Core Values, should do the following:
- Provide an environment that fosters respect, fairness, responsibility, trust, and honesty
- Maintain a governance structure that encourages shared decision making, transparency, and collegiality
- Provide stewardship and accountability to all constituents ("Transforming Bristol Community College: Strategic Plan." 2009-2011: 4)
We recognize the College's responsibility to ensure that it deliver on promises to our students and to render all of us in employment at the College accountable when it comes to delivering on the College's central mission. Certainly, the College has taken the effort to establish accountability via the Outcomes Assessment Team for Student Success (OATSS) committee, the Institutional Effectiveness Committee, and so forth.
But we question the degree to which a culture of trust and a governance structure of transparency have been established that would empower the College's stewardship. For example, relatively large numbers of high school students are enrolling at the college: 188 in the Fall of 2009 and 200 in the Spring of 2010 ("President's Address." Faculty and Professional Staff Meeting, Jan. 2010). In some cases seniors are taking all of their courses at the college. At the same time, freshmen and sophomores are also enrolling. There are serious questions to be discussed as to the appropriateness of younger students taking college courses, the effect of their presence on other students in the class, and the changes that might be occurring in high schools that are causing students to enroll at the college (Kate Taczak and William H. Thelin. "(Re)Envisioning the Divide: The Impact of College Courses on High School Students." Teaching English in the Two-Year College 37.1 (Sept. 2009): 7-23). Despite such questions the dual-enrollment program continues to grow without the requisite discussions as to its impact. Should not faculty and professional staff, who work directly with those students, be brought into these discussions?
Similarly, faculty input into the deliberations of the OATSS committee appears to be diminishing as administration asserts its dominance over matters of assessment at the College. While, as noted, we acknowledge administrative prerogatives to manage the College, we wonder as to the usefulness of establishing measures of assessment without community buy-in, most notably the buy-in of those who have direct responsibility to instruct our students. One constituent cites as a concern the act of “[r]emoving faculty from academic decisions." The constituent further notes that "[b]est practices nationally say that outcomes assessment should be faculty driven" ("Survey of Constituents." Sept.-Dec. 2009).
The case of Title III offers yet another piece of evidence suggesting a lack of shared governance at the College. While initially faculty and professional staff were invited to participate in the planning of the grant, their role became diminished and administration in the end shaped the product, deciding, for example, that "toolkits" would be the model for improvement of instruction in gateway courses rather than actual "course redesign," a goal that had been stipulated in the grant. Instead of offering ways to restructure pedagogical approaches in the required writing courses, participants were given Web 2.0 links to mindmapping sites. Three of the faculty who had signed on have since resigned from the project.
The same sequence has occurred in a variety of sectors, affecting a variety of initiatives: learning communities, for example, have failed to take hold at the College, in part because of a years' long lack of coordination between Academic Affairs and Enrollment Services, which oversees scheduling and advisement, but also because sustained dialogue with faculty and professional staff on the subject has yet to occur. Few faculty have joined up. Furthermore, College Success Seminars, whose potential for student achievement is so promising, remain stuck as a one-credit oddity. Again, few faculty, full-time or contingent, have signed up to teach such seminars.
One faculty/staff member offered this view as regards shared governance: "How will solicited input be handled? When asked for comments about an earlier event I sent a detailed response that I hoped would be helpful. I don’t know whether my feedback was considered and/or if any of my suggestions will be included in future events. If people are asked for input I think the requestor needs to consider in advance how input will be handled – and how that will be communicated to those who do make the effort to respond” ("Survey of Constituents.” Sept.-Nov. 2009).
Curriculum and Academic Standards
Without question, the College has, in recent years, undertaken a methodical assessment of all its programs and has worked hard to construct documents such as the description of the BCC Educated Person and the newly-revised General Education requirements that act to guide the College. Each academic area has been asked to engage in a thorough discussion of learning outcomes. The Fifth Year Report to NEASC references many such discussions including those that occurred in the Division of Mathematics, Science and Engineering:
"[The Division] is working to establish learning outcomes based on the BCC Educated Person. These efforts include collaboration with mathematics faculty from the six area institutions that are members of CONNECT, a regional consortium of public colleges and universities in southeastern Massachusetts, to develop course equivalencies common to the six member schools. The Natural Sciences department has created course packets for new instructors that present sample syllabi and course outlines to promote consistent outcomes across sections of the same course." (NEASC Fifth Year Report. Jan. 2009: 7)
As these matters go forward, however, the College faces serious obstacles to maintaining the highest standard of teaching and learning, one of the College's Core Values. Among the obstacles:
- The sheer number of contingent or adjunct faculty poses challenges to instructional quality. While undoubtedly many adjunct faculty perform in a professional manner in delivering instruction, the fact remains that adequate supervision of a growing cadre of contingent faculty (usually performed by a single divisional dean) has become impossible. As noted above, contingent faculty are not required to attend departmental, divisional, and professional staff meetings. Nor are they required to participate in workshops offered by the Lash Center for Teaching and Learning. Indeed, while new full-time faculty members must participate in a New Faculty Seminar given by the Lash Center, contingent faculty are not required to do so. As one constituent noted, “Oversight of adjuncts [can be done better]. I hear so many stories from students about basic issues - like [faculty] repeatedly not showing up for class, not responding to email, not getting student work back in a timely manner, requiring a text be bought then not using it at all" ("Survey of Constituents." Sept.-Dec. 2009). Another observed, "Given the high percentage of adjunct instructors, students have far less access to office hours than they would otherwise. Academic departments have far too little input from adjunct faculty and have difficulty communicating with them regarding discipline-specific and teaching ideas and issues, and department policies and expectations" ("Survey of Constituents." Sept.-Dec. 2009).
- The College has cut funds to pay for professional development, has reduced the budget of the Lash Center, and has placed severe limits on sabbaticals. These may seem to some as wise responses to a difficult economic environment. In fact, such moves are extremely short sighted, contributing in significant ways to damaging instructional quality at the College. Exacerbating the problem, as this White Paper has continually noted, is the college's use of a large and growing cadre of contingent faculty and staff, many of whom yearn for advice as to how to improve their pedagogy but receive little if any professional development. Indeed, even as the College boasts of establishing a "culture of assessment" (NEASC Fifth Year Report Jan. 2009: 13), it has created a parallel culture that diminishes the importance of scholarly reflection on instruction, for both full-time and contingent faculty and staff. The delivery of as much instruction as possible, both face-to-face and online, has become the College's real core value. How can meaningful assessment of learning occur when few faculty and staff have the means and opportunity to reflect on their teaching? The stated goal, in the College's most recent Strategic Plan, to "[d]evelop, implement and assess models for success that support all stages of faculty and staff development" ("Goal B" Strategic Plan: 7) seems but empty rhetoric.
- The College has opted to promote a culture of expediency rather than instructional necessity. It is a common story: a first-semester student at the College has failed entrance tests in both reading and writing. As such the student is required to take developmental reading and writing. Yet that same student is not prevented from taking a reading- and writing-intensive course such as US history or general psychology, one of which may very well require an extensive research paper. The student, understandably, wants to move further along to satisfy her requirements for a degree, but should the College adopt the same desire for expediency? We think not. Sadly, the scenario often plays out, ending too often with student failure. The push to move students along without due consideration of pedagogical consequences is felt in so many other ways at the College: in the development of a compressed schedule and longer classes to accommodate a perceived need of students to meet demands off-campus; in the College's promotion of e-tutoring for students who, it is thought, simply don't have the time to work with a tutor face-to-face; or in the proliferation of quick, certificate programs, unburdened by the range of requirements that students must address in degree programs.
Conclusions and Recommendations
The purpose of this White Paper is to be constructive by assessing what the College is presently doing well and what it is not. The College has done and will likely continue to do well by its students and the community that it serves. The Senate shares in that trust and hope.
Yet we also feel bound to offer this stark assessment: the College is adrift, tacking this way or that, at the mercy of strong forces. All community colleges face difficult budgetary constraints; all community colleges confront pressures to achieve peak enrollment even as resources dwindle. Our College is not unique in being buffeted in this way.
But it can, to a large degree, chart its own path. At this moment, after considerable growth in enrollment and expansion to four campuses (including the e-Campus), the College is, as clichéd as it sounds, at a crossroads. We do not look longingly down the road which we have traveled in the past. We simply believe that the path toward adaptation must be thoughtfully and collaboratively chosen, if the College is to meet the demands of the next decade and beyond. To that end, in a collaborative spirit and based on the findings of this White Paper, we offer the following counsel:
- Decision making at the College can be more open and transparent than is currently the case. One place to begin is with monthly and annual reports. We strongly suggest that all monthly and annual reports be available for public view at all stages of the reporting process. Such reports should include all items put forward by faculty/professional staff to department chairs, as well as items submitted by chairs to divisional deans and by deans to the Chief Academic Officer.
- Development of academic policy can be the product of meaningful consultation and collaboration with all stakeholders--in other words, genuinely shared governance, which we believe is desirable for positive growth at an academic institution. As a first step toward that goal, we would like to see the College establish a position on the Board of Trustees for a representative of the Faculty and Professional Staff Senate.
- If it has the will, the College can establish explicit goals by which to address the imbalance between full-time and contingent faculty, setting a clear time frame within which these goals are to be met. We strongly advise that a) the College establish a committee of top-level administrators and at least two full-time Senate constituents (chosen by the Senate) charged to develop a plan that will ethically reduce reliance on contingent faculty at all campuses while addressing student needs, and b) until such time as the plan is implemented the College freeze temporarily the percentage of credits taught by contingent faculty at FY 2010 levels.
- Inequities of academic support among campuses can be concretely addressed. We propose that the College, with all stakeholders represented in the drafting process, compose a Master Plan to assess the various needs of all campuses, satellites, and the e-campus and to recommend the best means of addressing those needs in an equitable fashion.
- We respectfully acknowledge the managerial prerogatives of our academic administration. However, to secure greater understanding among all elements of the College and promote solutions to the complex challenges faced by the institution, we strongly advocate retaining the services of an independent Ombudsman, appointed by, and answerable to, the Board of Trustees and adhering to the Code of Ethics of the International Ombudsman Association.
We hold to the view that each segment of the College has much to contribute toward the performance of the College's mission and that each segment has an expertise to be used and cherished. We envision a College that draws routinely and generously on the expertise of all who are employed at the College and whose primary interest is to provide the most fruitful environment for student learning. Change is inevitable, but change that is not collaboratively managed invites myopia. With this White Paper, we hope to begin the process of expanding the field of vision and collaboratively laying out a path for the College's, and our students', continued success.
