Part of the reason that community colleges are cheaper is that
faculty are paid at a lower rate at community colleges than at the 4 year
schools. And, especially in the state of Washington, part-time faculty at
community colleges are paid a woefully low wage, even for a part-timer. We
are soliciting our state legislature to raise part-time salaries in a
campaign for equity pay, but it's an extremely tough battle.
There's also an interesting political argument advocated by some on
the left, who agree with the far right, that developmental programs have no
place at the post-secondary level--even at a community college. They want
to see students placed in transfer courses because they see no value in
developmental offerings. They see developmental as a roadblock that
discriminates against those students of color who have historically been
discriminated against; so in their eyes developmental programs are a way to
perpetuate the elitism of America. How about that! That is an argument in
vogue at my college and if you oppose that point of view you are labeled as
an elitist and probably a racist.
Larry Silverman
Seattle Central Community College
English Department
1701 Broadway
Seattle, WA 98122
Tel 206-587-2915
[log in to unmask]
> ----------
> From: Dr. Karen Smith[SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Reply To: Open Forum for Learning Assistance Professionals
> Sent: Monday, April 12, 1999 6:32 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Items of Interest- I wonder
>
> Annette, on the issue of community college faculty teaching developmental
> courses in the universities...
>
> The factor which no one is mentioning in the responses to your message is
> that funding for instruction in community colleges differs greatly from
> that of state colleges. This was the reason given in New Mexico when the
> developmental/remedial courses were removed from the course lists at the
> colleges. At least in that state (and I would assume in most other states
> as well), funding for the state colleges is determined by an entirely
> different formula than for the community colleges, where a good percentage
> of the funding comes in the same fashion as for the public schools. It
> was
> explained to me at the time that instruction at the community college is
> far less, and, according to the state legislators, if someone "needed to
> be
> taught again" that which the community had already paid through the public
> school, then the community should shoulder the primary cost.
>
> In my understanding of the argument that has surfaced in so many states,
> funding differences lie at the heart of the decision.
>
> We shouldn't ignore the fact that, in all probability, the community
> college faculties do a far better job -- on the whole -- in teaching
> students with developmental course needs than university faculty do.
> There
> are exceptions, of course, but the huge majority of university faculty are
> interested in gaining tenure, which largely has nothing to do with
> teaching....
>
>
>
> >I'm not objecting to community college faculty teaching developmental
> >courses from an educational point of view. As long as students'
> >needs are met, it's fine by me, and community college faculty often
> >understand how to do the job better. My point was that the
> >arrangement shows how hypocritical the whole political decision
> >is: We won't offer developmental courses at senior colleges
> >because we're raising standards; but as long as the students get
> >the same courses in the same building taught by faculty affiliated
> >with a community college, we can pretend we don't offer developmental
> >education at those colleges and we can boast about how much higher
> >our standards are. The rhetoric of "higher standards" is what
> >we at CUNY are hearing as a justification of the whole movement.
> >
> >Annette Gourgey
> >CUNY
> >[log in to unmask]
>
>
> Karen G. Smith
> Rutgers University's Learning Resource Centers
> [log in to unmask]
> <http://lrc.rutgers.edu>
> <http://pass.rutgers.edu>
>
