>Perhaps what I have to say is not directly relevant to this discussion, but
>it does tie in and it's on my mind a lot these days.
>
To the contrary, I think it is directly relevant to the discussion.
>We put a lot of effort into evaluating students when they come to us, not
>nearly as much into evelauating them when they leave us. That is certainly
>true here at Jefferson CC; I suspect it is true also at the primary and
>secondary levels.
>
But we should. No matter what level we teach at, we should be held
accountable, and we should be able to give some supporting evidence that we
"are doing our job." (Whatever that "job" may be.)
>The administration at this institution talks about academic standards, but
>the data they collect is all about 'retention' (i.e. how many passed your
>course?) and 'customer satisfaction' (e.g., student evaluations, graduate
>follow-up questionnaires). I know of no effort to measure what the
>students know and can apply. We have some departmental finals, but they
>are graded by the teacher of the course. The pressure is all in one
>direction -- pass more students.
Been there. Done that. When the whole TQM craze came on the scene a few
years ago, we were told that the students were our customers. I think a far
better analogy is that the students are our product, and (in my case, since
I teach at a CC where nearly every student I teach plans to go on to a
university) the universities are our customers.
>
>Now, I am not asking to have some suit looking over my shoulder when I
>teach; but if we are going to complain about the students' condition when
>they get here, we had better be ready to certify their condition when they
>leave. It strikes me that we could gain more public support for
>remediation if we could demonstrate that it _is_ a remedy. Developmental
>courses should _develop_ students; even those who do not meet exit
>competency should have made demonstrable and sustainable progress during
>the semester.
>
How about this as some examples of maintaining accountability for ourselves:
AS students: Job placement and job performance. Surely it is not too
difficult to talk to people in the comunity who hire our AS students and ask
them to assess how prepared these students were for the job. What did we do
right? wrong? What can we do better?
AA students: Transfer GPA. I tell my students (and my administration) that
I am reasonably confident that I am doing my job because when my students
transfer to a university they have essentially the same GPA as native
students. (I did a three year study and found that LSCC graduates who
transfer to our primary receiving university graduated from the university
with an average GPA of 0.01 higher than native students of the university.
(Note: This was GPA in Jr/Sr level courses only.)
We have some administrators (and Board members) who claim we are too tough,
and that only the elite get through. The data does not justify this. When
our students transfer to a university they are ready to compete on a level
playing field with the native students. Isn't that what we are supposed to
be preparing them to do? If we were elitist, then our students would have
higher GPA's, right?
Bret Taylor Lake-Sumter Community College Leesburg FL
"It matters not the subject taught, nor all the books on all the shelves.
What matters more, yes most of all, is what the teachers are themselves."
John Wooden
John 3: 3^3 + 3
****************************************************************************
* To post to the list: email mathedcc@archives.math.utk.edu *
* To unsubscribe, send mail to: majordomo@archives.math.utk.edu *
* In the mail message, enter ONLY the words: unsubscribe mathedcc *
* Words in the Subject: line are NOT processed! *
* Archives at http://archives.math.utk.edu/hypermail/mathedcc/ *
****************************************************************************