Point 1. Concurrent enrollment is awesome.
Many Utah high school students take courses that give them both high school and college credit. Through these concurrent enrollment (“CE”) courses, students can get a feel for college work, some college credit, and some additional academic challenge.
Point 2. Concurrent enrollment has some problems (funding, quality, excess credits).
Funding. CE is a financial loser for colleges. With cuts to state funding – made worse by significant enrollment numbers – Utah colleges have recently given notice that they will reduce CE offerings.
Quality. Because the quality of CE varies significantly, colleges receive students who have credit on the transcript but actually lack the foundational skills that should have been acquired.
Excess College Credits. Many Utah students graduate high school with an associates degree. Again, awesome! However, half those credits won’t count toward a baccalaureate degree. Though any and all education is great, Utah can’t afford to pay for any and all education. CE courses need to track toward a degree.
Point 3. The problems need to be addressed now.
With colleges now moving to reduce offerings, something will need to be done this legislative session regarding CE.
Point 4. Perspective: we’re dealing w/ success, not failure.
It is important to approach a challenge like this with the right perspective. CE mostly works very well. In an innovative way, we created lots of different CE courses Some work. Some don’t. We now simply need to retool.
Point 5. The solution might be at hand.
This past year, Utah developed 6 general education courses – specifically for CE – to deal with the 3 problems outlined above (funding, quality, and excess credits). These 6 courses – called TICE courses, for Technologically-Intensive Concurrent Enrollment courses – can be delivered more affordably, using technology and high school teachers. To assure quality, outcomes and competencies can be measured across the state; that way, we can see which high schools are getting it done and which ones are struggling. And, because they are general education courses, the TICE courses will track toward baccalaureate degrees.
Point 6. We need to expand the number of TICE courses.
Drawing lessons from implementation of the 6 TICE courses, let’s create some more TICE general education courses.
Point 7. We need to establish foundational requirements to better assure success in the college-level courses.
As I’ve written – oh, a couple dozen times on this blog – our students’ lack of basic math and English skills are dooming most of them to fail in college. Well, let’s use CE to help fix that problem. The first step toward taking CE courses should be successful passage of the College Success Primer.
Point 8. Public ed and higher ed requirements need to align better.
Face it. Most of us take math in college, to check a box and move on to a happier place where we no longer need to worry about math classes. Yes, there are plenty of exceptions; I get it. But, most of us get through life just fine using algebraic math skills. Anything else, we Google it or phone a friend. So, why do we take math in high school, forget it, bog down in college on the same math, relearn it, and, ultimately, forget it for life? Maybe because we like to bang our heads against a wall. It’s a dumb pathway. Instead, we should embed college in our high schools. Take algebra. Pass it. Receive college credit. Box. Checked.
Point 9. We should consider a funding stream for concurrent enrollment.
A few years ago, a bill was passed (then, vetoed) that would have funding CE by charging students a fraction of normal tuition (about 1/10th the cost – meaning somewhere between $15 and $30/course). That still left the students with an effective 9/10th scholarship. The rationale, loosely speaking, for the veto was that “public education is free.” Well, ya, but higher education isn’t public education. Higher education is based on a user-pay model. So, flash forward and, now, without that funding stream, the offerings are being cut. We might want to consider a model where anyone can take the courses for high school credit, but payment (again, 1/10th the normal cost) needs to be made to receive the college credit.
Point 10. Let’s do this.
Because we are building on success, this one shouldn’t be too difficult to figure out. Maybe I’m completely wrong on these points, and someone will want to correct me or chart a different pathway. That’s fine. The thing is, we need to get the conversation going in earnest before the session. So, let’s talk.
I have worked with and around concurrent enrollment for over 30 years, starting when the very idea of a dual/concurrent enrollment was just a concept and ending with today when we serve thousands of high school students with general education courses. The concept if valid and productive. That does not mean there are no problems. Here are some suggestions for consideration:
1. The TICE courses spoken of assume that some college/university “owns” them. Case in point: A couple of the courses, the math courses, are TICE offerings, but neither course leads toward any university degree pathway–They are simply elective, remedial math courses. Why would USU want to “own” either course or even offer them? Unless the TICE courses are “owned” by a college or university willing to take on the burden of monitoring quality, monitoring and assisting with instructors, and granting college/university credits bearing the college/university’s name on the transcript, the TICE course has no meaning or usefulness. Lacking in the development of the TICE courses is the matter of establishing ownership of the courses and financial return for that ownership.
2. Utah is more than generous in offering “free” college credit through concurrent enrollment. Why do we continue to do this when neighboring states, in fact most states in the US, charge tuition for concurrent enrollment courses? The lack of state funding support flowing to college/universities is little incentive for colleges or universities to increase concurrent enrollments or even to continue concurrent enrollment program at all. Tuition of some sort would be an incentive for high school students to take more seriously concurrent enrollment courses and a financial basis of support that would help college and universities sustain concurrent enrollment. What is realistic? In Idaho, students pay approximately $50 per credit hour. A similar charge in Utah is reasonable. Granted, there may some schools with high poverty where that kind of tuition is prohibitive. Those schools could be assisted by having access for some kind of fee waiver reimbursement continuing existing state concurrent enrollment. moneys.
3. Much of the January blog speaks of the lack of readiness for college-level work among Utah’s high school students. A couple of suggestions here that are shown to raise student readiness: One, the ACT College Readiness course suggestions clearly establish that when students take a rigorous core courses while in high school, their ACT scores are higher and their readiness for college improved. What is that core? English every year, math every year, science every year. This is not rocket science, yet the state high school graduation requirements do not insist on that level of rigorous preparation but allow students to take lots of fluff / elective courses. Granted, orchestra and marching band are important, but neither will likely get a student prepared for college. The state’s General Financial Literacy and Civics courses, required by fiat of the state legislature, do nothing to improve science or math or English ability, yet they take part of a student’s high school schedule. If the legislature is serious about getting Utah’s students ready for college or life, then demand students be enrolled in courses that produce that readiness.
3. I acknowledge the compliments given to Utah’s public school teachers. However, what I observe is “flight” from education as a valid career occupation by college graduates. Why? Low pay, gutted retirement programs, constant criticism and micro management. The hiring pool for qualified science teachers is 1/2″ deep at the deep end, and the loser are Utah’s rural and inner city schools who are unable to attract or retain qualified science faculty. Who is injured? Every student attending those schools, and when criticism of those schools’ poor preparation is made, someone needs to acknowledge the criticism and responsibility needs to go to the system and the state legislature that has created and manages that system.
Good luck in addressing the very real problems with concurrent enrollment programs, but in “fixing” the problem, please make sure that the “fix” does not worsen the situation and please make sure that high schools are enabled to toughen up their high school graduation requirements by staffing and offering rigorous academic courses.
I absolutely agree with Mr. Jenson’s point about college-readiness. English, science, and math are crucial to future success, and there must be higher expectations for coursework in these areas all four years of high school. I also agree with Mr. Jenson’s point about the flight from education as a career path for all of the reasons Mr. Jenson stated: “Low pay, gutted retirement programs, constant criticism and micro management.” Here are my questions about TICE courses specifically as well as preparing students for successful lives and careers.
1) If we expect our students to successfully compete in a global economy, how does “dumbing-down” the curriculum accomplish that? If a sophomore in high school can pass a college-level TICE course, how is the TICE course really college-level? Mr. Urquhart’s suggestion to “embed college in our high schools” also speaks to this. If it’s on a high school level, is it really “higher education”?
2) Who decides what level of any content is enough? How is that determined? How does Mr. Urquhart know that if students pass algebra in high school they will not need any math skills beyond those (Mr. Urquhart: “Take algebra. Pass it. Receive college credit. Box. Checked.”)? How does this prepare students to successfully compete in a global economy when A) the most recent data suggests that people will change careers as few as 5 and as many as 11 times in their employment career, and B) one of the most daunting educational challenges today is that we are expected to prepare students for careers that do not yet exist due to the rapid growth rate of technology. Taking “higher” math skills (one example that can be applied to most disciplines) is not just so students learn content and skills in that content area, but it is also so students learn to think critically and logically, problem-solve, and effectively transfer those THINKING skills to whatever area in which they are working. If we graduate students well-prepared for one specific career, who will pay for the inconvenient re-educating when the students switch career fields out of choice or necessity?
3) What does it really mean to be “prepared” for college? By Utah standards, an eighth grade student who scored 55% on the May 2011 state test (which consisted of 48 multiple-choice questions) is “proficient” in eighth grade language arts. Is that student REALLY on a path to future academic and career success?
My last question (for now) is about the pay for teachers in Utah which is consistently among the very lowest in the entire country (a country that overall pays 10-12% less than those international schools that seem to be so important to politicians). What is the REAL reason why legislators are so reluctant to direct more money to teachers’ salaries? The most popular answer seems to be, “We don’t have it.” However, that didn’t stop the 2011 legislature from appropriating $2.46 million to create the TICE courses. That doesn’t seem to be an issue in paying bonuses to math and science teachers. It doesn’t appear to be a factor in paying CTE teachers extra money for students who do well on state tests. Obviously it’s going to be a very popular answer considering the current state of the economy, yet it was the answer even in years of economic surplus in Utah. This issue is especially important to me as I seriously consider leaving education after spending the last 16+ years living paycheck to paycheck because I am determined to be the most effective teacher I can be. For me that means that I have worked an additional 397 hours beyond my contract time since August. By the state’s standards I am an effective teacher: 100% of my students were “proficient” on the May 2011 state test, and my students had the highest overall progress score of any teacher at my school. Please don’t cite any myths about merit pay having anything to do with this. There is little to no evidence that merit pay increases student achievement, and a lot of evidence that merit pay does NOT impact student achievement positively.
Thanks to Senator Urquhart for this forum, and I strongly encourage other EXPERTS to comment as Mr. Jenson and I have. If the politicians won’t seek our expertise, we must find ways to get it to them.
Ed,
Great points. Thank you. Here are my responses (which I hope you will correct, where needed).
1. Individual institutions will own the TICE courses. You raise a dang good point on Math 1010. Because it counts as an elective credit, not a math credit, I share your concern. We offer it in college, because students need the remediation. Not sure why we would offer it as CE. I’ll call the TICE project coordinator, and I’ll post a supplement. Math 1030 is math credit for non-stem degrees.
2. Yep.
3. Agreed. My skin has finally grown back from 2003, when I was House sponsor of the bill to require 3 years of math. Lots of status quo inertia fighting against meaningful changes in education.
4. I know that there is tremendous opposition from teachers to working all year, but this really would be the feasible way to increase pay.
And, yes, I will take your final thoughts to heart. We have something good with CE. Let’s not mess it up, when we try to fix it. Thanks again.
When I was in high school in California I didn’t have an option to choose CE classes, but I did take a few Advanced Placement (AP) classes. Basically these AP classes were secondary classes that prepared me to test (and pay a fee for the test) to see if I qualified to receive college credit.
Now that I have kids of my own that are approaching high school age, I’m surprised to learn Utah doesn’t charge anything for CE. Students *should* have to pay something for CE (like you said, higher education isn’t public education), and I say that knowing that it means money will have to come from my pocket when my kids are older.
You make great points, Senator. I hope we can make progress on this.
In my capacity as the TICE project coordinator, let me try to lend some perspective about the positioning of the MATH 1010 course.
All of the USHE institutions teach MATH 1010 because students need at least this level of proficiency to take college-level mathematics courses that satisfy general education requirements. For students in non-technical majors, this is MATH 1030; for most others it is MATH 1050.
High school students who excel in Algebra 2 (soon to become Math 3 under the Common Core standards) usually can go on to take MATH 1030 or 1050 in college with no problem. However, students who struggle in Algebra 2 (or perhaps take a year off from math) are frequently underprepared to take college-level math courses like MATH 1030 or 1050. MATH 1010 is the course that provides a bridge for these students to take college-level math courses by 1) teaching concepts at a greater level of depth than Algebra 2, and 2) teaching from a conceptual point of view rather than a computational point of view. Calculators are usually required in Algebra 2 but discouraged or even forbidden in MATH 1010 and higher. The differences in depth and approach make the jump from Algebra 2 to MATH 1050 simply too big for many students, and MATH 1010 is poised as a stepping stone to help a great many students make the transition from high school math to college math.
Why didn’t we make MATH 1010 count for Algebra 2 credit in high school? Because there should be a clear understanding of the separate responsibilities of higher and public ed. Sure, the CE courses count for credit in both arenas, but higher education should take care not to take over the business of teaching the high school curriculum. MATH 1010 counts as elective high school credit because it is designed to be taken AFTER Algebra 2, not instead of it, and only then by students who are unable to make the leap to MATH 1030 or 1050.