Preserving the Ladder of Opportunity

Equity Week is coming to a close. We’ve covered how the marginalization of a field can further marginalize the students in it. We’ve heard about how instructional technique and curricular redesign can empower students in the classroom. And just this morning, we learned about an approach that boosts student success by addressing students’ economic barriers. 

In our first post this week, we highlighted the important role that community colleges, and developmental education in particular, have to play in creating equal opportunity. But the responsibility to pursue equitable policies and practices extends across the educational pipeline. On Tuesday, The New York Times ran an article about elite four-year colleges serving a disproportionately small number of low-income students. As evidence, the article looks at a Georgetown University study of the class of 2010 at the country’s 193 most selective colleges.  According to the study:

“As entering freshmen, only 15 percent of students came from the bottom half of the income distribution. Sixty-seven percent came from the highest-earning fourth of the distribution. These statistics mean that on many campuses affluent students outnumber middle-class students.”

These are dramatic statistics for a society that prizes equal opportunity and claims to be meritocratic. The article goes on to tell us about how one elite school is venturing to change these grim numbers.

Anthony Marx, president of Amherst College, has spent the past seven years trying to make his institution more economically diverse. In the process, he has made Amherst College a model of equity that the entire American education system should consider. In order to enroll more low-income students, Amherst has re-imagined their admission process and their financial aid and transfer policies. Now, nearly two-thirds of Amherst’s transfer students are from community colleges.

I’m going to close out equity week by returning to some words from the 1947 Truman Commission referenced in Tuesday’s post: “If the ladder of educational opportunity rises high at the doors of some youth and scarcely rises at all at the doors of others, while at the same time formal education is made a prerequisite to occupational and social advance, then education may become the means, not of eliminating race and class distinctions, but of deepening and solidifying them.” In light of the results of the above study, these somber words of warning from over 60 years ago seem almost prophetic. The American educational system, often viewed as the hallmark of social mobility, seems to be increasingly determined to preserve the status quo income distribution. Community colleges must continue to do their part to keep the door open to all students, and we must hope that equitable policies like those seen at Amherst will catch on.

Alyson Zandt is a Program Associate at MDC.

Guest Post: Retention Economics

As we said on Tuesday, developmental education is an essential rung on the ladder of educational and economic opportunity for many American students. Students who are placed in dev ed travel a difficult educational road, and they also face significant non-academic barriers to college success. While these barriers may seem outside the realm of college responsibility, addressing them can have dramatic effects on student success outcomes. Today’s guest post about a program that integrates academic and financial stability comes from Colin Austin, senior program director at MDC.

It’s a simple idea, really. Help students with their finances and they will be more likely to stay in school. Lower-income students in particular are often just a car break-down or hospital bill away from dropping out. How can educators and campus systems respond to these non-academic issues? What role should community colleges play in organizing supports that address the economic challenges that students and their families face?

The Annie E. Casey Foundation developed an approach called Center for Working Families that bundles services across what are usually three distinct platforms: education and training, income supports, and financial services. For colleges, bundling means building on existing training and financial aid and adding additional supports such as matched savings programs, financial literacy instruction, screening for public benefits, and one-on-one achievement coaching.

Sound expensive? Community colleges participating in MDC’s Center for Working Families Network find that small amounts of early investment can spark new connections on campus and stronger relationships with community agencies. And results indicate that students who receive an integrated set of supports are 3 to 4 times more likely to reach a major economic goal such as finishing a degree or credential and landing a job.

At Guilford Technical Community College in North Carolina, students tap into tax credits and human services benefits such as food stamps and health insurance, all from one on-campus location.  Skyline College in Northern California partners with the United Way of the Bay Area to operate a SparkPoint Center – a place where students work with a coach to improve their credit, increase income, and create a step-by-step plan to meet personal financial goals. Other colleges adopting the Center for Working Families approach are engaged in similar activities, all focused on addressing economic barriers to student success.

Colin Austin is a senior program director at MDC. Colin directs several initiatives for MDC including the Center for Working Families network of community colleges and a U.S. Department of Labor Pathways Out of Poverty grant for green job training.

Guest Post: Equity, Opportunity, and Developmental Mathematics

Today’s contributor is Jack Rotman. Jack has been teaching at Lansing Community College in Michigan since 1973, specializing in developmental mathematics. As a member of the American Mathematical Association of Two-Year Colleges’ (AMATYC), Jack is involved in a number of efforts to innovate developmental math instruction. Below, he shares his insights into how this work is connected to equitable instruction and opportunity for community college students.

Mathematics often serves as a gatekeeper to credentials in higher education, with the discipline sometimes being placed in this role against our will.  In this post, I will share some thoughts on the connections among developmental mathematics, equity, and current innovations.

We have a tendency to believe that the gaps in equity among student groups are beyond our control, that perhaps inequity is due to lifestyles, culture, or other factors that we cannot influence. However, there exist bodies of knowledge and theories which predict that our instructional design can have profound influence on these inequities if we understand the factors that need to be addressed. For example, in Berliner and Calfee’s Handbook of Educational Psychology,  Webb & Palincsar point out that “ethnic background and race operate as status indicators” in our classrooms, meaning that non-minority students feel more comfortable (contributing, asking questions, etc.). Another related concept from the work of Na’ilah Suad Nasir is the “default trajectory of failure,” where the culture or sub-culture not only accepts failure but expects failure. An exciting body of evidence in social-psychological interventions in education is suggesting some effective means to counter this default trajectory. An analysis of this work is forthcoming from David Yeager and Gregory Walton of Stanford University. For other applications of theories and research, you might start by looking at the work of Craig Nelson who conducts workshops on improving the retention of all students—including minority students—in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) fields. 

Increasing equity involves being aware of language, power, and the social climate in academia. The most fundamental of these ideas is power; without power, there can be no real opportunity, which is the outcome of equity. There are many different power dynamics that play out in an individual classroom, but as professionals, we can consciously employ strategies that build up students’ sense of academic power. In my own classes, I use a combination of “cold calling” to include all students and rotating small groups, along with keeping an eye out to make sure that everybody is active. This kind of empowerment is not a “zero-sum” process; indeed, it is possible to create an environment where all students increase their power in academia.

Evidence shows that HOW we do WHAT we do can move us towards more equitable approaches to developmental mathematics—and some approaches might take us in the wrong direction: One of the current trends in developmental mathematics is the emphasis of online homework systems, and the related module-based redesign efforts. I believe that these trends will not increase equity in our classrooms. Our response needs to include face-to-face time that is structured to empower all students. On the other hand, many colleges are implementing learning communities, and evidence suggests that this practice has a lot of potential to make classrooms more equitable. Another current set of initiatives involves a basic re-design of the curriculum, and this is a good thing from an equity standpoint. The existing curricular model is based on a calculus-target, and a non-engaging set of learning outcomes. Redesigns—like Statway and Quantway, for example—contextualize abstract mathematical concepts with more practical applications; the New Life model is similar, though a more general approach than the Carnegie models. We need to base our curriculum on the mathematics that will inspire students and provide benefits in their non-math courses. You can learn more about other venues exploring this work by following these links:  American Mathematical Association of Two-Year Colleges’ (AMATYC) Developmental Math New Life Community and my blog, Developmental Mathematics Revival.

Jack Rotman has taught at Lansing Community College (MI) since 1973, specializing in developmental mathematics. Jack chaired the Developmental Mathematics Committee of AMATYC twice, from 1993 to 1997, and from 2005 to 2010.  He was a reviewer for the original Crossroads standards (1995), and a contributing writer for the Beyond Crossroads document (2006).  Since 2009, Jack has led the AMATYC ”New Life Project” for developmental mathematics, a project that includes over 60 professionals in a national effort to develop a new model for developmental mathematics. Jack, along with Julie Phelps (Valencia CC, FL), serves as an AMATYC Liaison to the Carnegie Foundation’s pathways work.

Guest Post: We Are Not Alone: Community and a Shared Vision for Basic Writing and Equity

Let’s welcome today’s guest blogger, J. Elizabeth Clark to Accelerating Achievement. Elizabeth is professor of English at LaGuardia Community College, CUNY where she teaches Basic Writing, English 101, and literature electives. She is also the incoming co-chair of the Council on Basic Writing with Hannah Ashley. We asked Elizabeth to introduce us to the Council on Basic Writing after reading an Inside Higher Ed piece on the organization; Serena Golden’s article, Basic, But Vital, pointed to a pattern “of ever-decreasing access for the students with the most need, and ever-decreasing visibility for those who teach them.” The CBW is working to change that pattern. Below, Elizabeth describes the Council and their efforts to support faculty that are supporting underserved students.

All too often, basic writing faculty members feel isolated on their campuses. Working in small departments separated from a college’s larger writing program or as one of a few faculty members in a larger writing program or in some cases as the sole basic writing faculty member on campus, many faculty members wish for a larger community to support their work as they serve some of the most at-risk students in our colleges and universities.

Since its formation, the Council on Basic Writing (CBW) has actively sought to provide that community. Established in 1980 by Karen Uehling and Charles Guilford, today the CBW provides an online and face-to-face community for teacher-scholars passionately devoted to the teaching of basic writing. The CBW-L listserv® provides a space for questions and conversations about everything from materials to use in classes, to questions about teaching, to emerging news in the field. At each year’s annual Conference on College Composition and Communication (CCCC), the CBW hosts a preconference workshop featuring presentations by basic writing scholars and emerging leaders in the field, opportunities for networking and sharing practices, and a working session for following up on online conversations.

Recently at CCCC 2011, the CBW worked to heighten the role of basic writing within the composition community. Although basic writing has historically been a critical component of the composition field, represented by scholars such as Mina Shaughnessy, Mike Rose, Bruce Horner, and David Bartholomae, many faculty members believe that basic writing has been increasingly marginalized within the field and its work is increasingly invisible in journals, at conferences, and in the scholarly representations of the field of composition. This marginalization mirrors the isolation many feel on their individual campuses. At the 2011 CBW workshop, entitled “We Are Not Alone,” faculty discussed how this sense of marginalization conflicts with the growing need for basic writing and developmental skills in our colleges and universities. At the same time faculty need new and innovative pedagogical and professional resources to address student needs, they are becoming increasingly difficult to find. In response to this, the CBW sponsored a Sense of the House resolution at CCCC as a first step in reemphasizing the important role that basic writing plays in the composition community:

“Be it resolved that Basic Writing is a vital field and its students and teacher scholars a productive force within composition; is under attack by exclusionary public policies; and therefore must be recognized publicly and supported by CCCC as a conference cluster and with featured sessions.”

This motion was passed unanimously at CCCC and represents the CBW’s commitment to raising awareness around basic writing, its pedagogies, practices, and scholarship. It also represents a renewed commitment to advocating for basic writing as an essential part of students’ educational opportunities and to helping new and emerging scholars meet the need for increased resources to help our faculty and students. To that end, we are creating a CBW mission statement that reflects the current state of basic writing and our commitment to it. If you’re interested in the CBW’s recent work at CCCC, please check out this CBW blog post.

You can read more about emerging basic writing pedagogy in our journal, the BWe. Although it is a separate entity, the CBW also shares a long-time relationship with the Journal of Basic Writing.

The CBW also supports scholars and programs with two awards, the annual Travel Award to fund travel expenses to CCCC and the Innovations Award to honor distinctive and cutting edge programs in basic writing. The CBW also maintains a Facebook page and website to provide additional information about the organization and its work. To join the CBW listserv, please follow the instructions here.

J. Elizabeth Clark is professor of English at LaGuardia Community College, CUNY where she teaches Basic Writing, English 101, and literature electives. She is part of the college’s award-winning ePortfolio team and is a faculty member in the Global Skills for College Completion project (GSCC).

SCALERS Series: L is for Lobbying

Welcome to the fourth week of our seven-week series exploring the seven drivers of the SCALERS model, a framework of organizational capacities that are essential for successfully scaling up effective programs. If you’re joining us for the first time, check out the series intro and the posts on the first three drivers: Staffing, Communicating, and Alliance-Building.

Since “lobbying” has very specific—and sometimes negative—connotations, for some people, we like to call this driver “demonstrating impact.” In order to secure and sustain support for an expansion plan, you’ve got to articulate to institutional, state, and federal decision makers that expanding (and/or continuing) a particular practice or program will have substantial benefits relative to costs. These same arguments must be made to individuals delivering the program as well as program participants. Scaling up a program or practice that has been successful on a small scale may require some disruption of organizational culture; this intensifies the imperative to clearly demonstrate how such change will advance institutional priorities—or why those institutional priorities need to change.

No matter what program you’re expanding, you should start by articulating the rationale for expansion and the connection to the college’s larger strategic plan. Then, consider what data you need to show how effective the strategy is at meeting the specified goal for the specified target population. Since it’s Equity Week at Accelerating Achievement, we encourage you to analyze data disaggregated by race, income, and other demographic factors and identify achievement gaps among student populations. If closing these gaps is an institutional priority for your college and one of the desired outcomes of your program, then it is essential that you analyze the evidence for how effectively the program accomplishes this goal. You should also ensure that your organization has the institutional research capacity to collect, measure, and communicate all of these data elements.

Collecting and analyzing data only serves this driver if you get to the demonstrating step. Make a plan to share information about program outcomes—within the organization, within the broader community, and with individuals who are in positions to influence program continuation, innovation, and further expansion. Your team should include individuals who can connect to state and federal policy decision makers; these individuals must have access to up-to-date information about program outcomes. Consider ways that those delivering program services and those participating can inform policy decisions through advocacy and information sharing. All these relationships and practices require that the organization consider other SCALERS drivers, in particular Communicating, Alliance-Building, and Sustaining Engagement.

For an example of the power of data, we refer you back to one of this blog’s first posts from Michael Collins, program director at Jobs for the Future.  JFF developed the DEI State Policy Strategy, a state-level developmental education improvement strategy, with three action priorities:

• A data-driven improvement process that ensures the right conditions for innovation.
• A state-level innovation investment strategy that helps states align and coordinate support from multiple sources to provide incentives for the development, testing, and scaling up of effective models for helping underprepared students succeed.
• Policy supports that provide a foundation for improved outcomes for underprepared students, facilitate the implementation of effective and promising models, and encourage the spread of successful practices.

By focusing on data-driven planning, resource coordination, and policy that supports effective practice, JFF’s strategy provides a framework for demonstrating impact at the college, system, and state level.

Abby Parcell is a Program Manager at MDC.