As the new administration of Rhode Island begins to hit their executive stride, the residents of Rhode Island are beginning to see the policy that was promised during Governor Gina Raimondo’s election camp72aign. One particular piece of legislation not discussed on the campaign trail being produced by the General Assembly, which would certainly affect students at every public institution of higher learning in the state.
The proposed bill, known in the Senate as the bluntly titled ‘Performance Funding Act of 2015’ would institute performance-based funding and metrics by which the state would measure the ability of state institutions to hasten a student's progress in obtaining degrees and credentials. Performance-based funding in higher education is practiced in 30 states, with several other states considering implementing similar measures. The legislation, if approved, would begin in the 2018 fiscal year.
In the Rhode Island General Assembly, House Bill H 5077 and the companion Senate Bill S 0603 have the same idea in handling future funding for higher education. The bill was proposed in the House on January 14 by representatives McNamara, Azzinaro, Diaz, Bennett, and Malik. The bill in the Senate was introduced on March 5 by Senate President Paiva-Weed, and senators Gallo, DaPonte, McCaffrey, and Senate Minority Leader Algiere. The proposed legislation would undoubtedly redefine the future of higher education in the state college system.
These bills are expected to come up for a vote within the next month, with the prospects of it passing looking very strong. The legislation is likely to be hotly contested in hearings, but may be assumed to ultimately be a done deal.
Detractors of performance-based funding in higher education view this legislation as an unnecessary encroachment of politicians as well as well-monied and influential policymakers into areas in which they should not have any undue influence. Many also say that cutting budgets occurs under the guise of not meeting performance standards. This criticism is not without merit, however. Rhode Island became an affiliate of the education policy think tank Complete College America in the last few years, and is taking note of suggestions and moving to embrace these standards within the immediate future.
Complete College America, or CCA, is a non-profit founded in 2009, largely under the aegis of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. This support from the Gates Foundation is not only monetary, but also provides some assistance in policy direction as well. It’s worth noting that the Gates Foundation also financed a substantial amount of the formation of the contentious Common Core standards for K-12 education.
These foundations allow a billionaire and the minds around him unprecedented and unjustified access to the curricula of schools at the state and federal level, with few state abstentions. These non-profit foundations are private, and as such, have very little legal accountability which certainly brings up concerns about organizational transparency for taxpayers and students alike.
CCA has five ‘Game Changers’ that are often adhered to in affiliated states, the first of which is included in this bill in the form of performance-based funding. It would stand to reason that the other four parts of this policy will invariably come to be proposed in the next few years as well.
The second part of the policy would be the inclusion of corequisite remediation, a policy which would place many students who may be unprepared or underprepared for college-level courses in classes with those of whom are prepared, which would ultimately put every student on the spectrum at a disadvantage. It would present a challenge on those who are unready, and hinder those who are able to take college-level courses without difficulty.
The inclusion of remediation in college-level courses would dilute the content that many professors would be able to teach and would put CCRI students who may need a quick refreshment of skills forgotten since high school or those with learning disabilities at a disadvantage, since they would be forced to catch up to their peers.
Another prong of the full enactment of the policy is to bump the threshold for full-time students up to 15 credit hours per semester, three credits higher than the 12 credit hours it is presently at all three schools, the rough equivalent of another course in a semester. This congested schedule would undoubtedly add a great deal of stress for students already burdened by the myriad obligations that life presents to students with variable work schedules, engaging in hobbies, or perhaps children and other family members that are in their care.
Another goal of the policy would provide an even greater obstacle with those who take learning at their own pace, in the form of block scheduling. Block scheduling is a format of scheduling in which students would be in the same classes in different subjects together for an extended period of time. One may look at block scheduling wistfully and think about time spent in high school, but it should not be allowed in a collegiate environment. While some may appreciate the predictability of the scheduling, the inability of a student to select when to take a particular class could certainly be frustrating. Each student should be able to choose which classes they wish to take, and the time at which to take them.
The final portion of this policy the CCA wishes to implement involves the formation of so-called ‘Guided Pathways’ that would essentially be the student’s entire academic schedule laid out on a piece of paper with no room for variation. This would be made easier with the implementation of several of the last few points proposed allowing for a fully regimented feel to scheduling that is designed to get students through as fast as humanly possible without regard for personal circumstances or intellectual curiosity.
In the Senate version of the bill, part of the text states that: “Graduation data shall include the average excess credits that students have accumulated and the approximate cost of these credits to both the students and the state.” This reads as if taking courses that aren’t immediately necessary to the obtainment of a degree are a waste.
To view courses through which a student may learn a great deal of information as ‘excess’ is an entirely problematic viewpoint that should not be allowed to pervade its way through education at any stage. Curiosity and testing the waters in a subject one may not be familiar with is what makes community colleges a viable option for many students over four year schools.
The Community College of Rhode Island was built in the hopes of sating the hungry minds of the state and region, which is an undeniably noble and just goal. What is now proposed would inevitably open the floodgates and turn CCRI, URI, and RIC into mechanical fast-food education goliaths, shuffling customers out the door before they know what’s on the menu.
The proposed bill, known in the Senate as the bluntly titled ‘Performance Funding Act of 2015’ would institute performance-based funding and metrics by which the state would measure the ability of state institutions to hasten a student's progress in obtaining degrees and credentials. Performance-based funding in higher education is practiced in 30 states, with several other states considering implementing similar measures. The legislation, if approved, would begin in the 2018 fiscal year.
In the Rhode Island General Assembly, House Bill H 5077 and the companion Senate Bill S 0603 have the same idea in handling future funding for higher education. The bill was proposed in the House on January 14 by representatives McNamara, Azzinaro, Diaz, Bennett, and Malik. The bill in the Senate was introduced on March 5 by Senate President Paiva-Weed, and senators Gallo, DaPonte, McCaffrey, and Senate Minority Leader Algiere. The proposed legislation would undoubtedly redefine the future of higher education in the state college system.
These bills are expected to come up for a vote within the next month, with the prospects of it passing looking very strong. The legislation is likely to be hotly contested in hearings, but may be assumed to ultimately be a done deal.
Detractors of performance-based funding in higher education view this legislation as an unnecessary encroachment of politicians as well as well-monied and influential policymakers into areas in which they should not have any undue influence. Many also say that cutting budgets occurs under the guise of not meeting performance standards. This criticism is not without merit, however. Rhode Island became an affiliate of the education policy think tank Complete College America in the last few years, and is taking note of suggestions and moving to embrace these standards within the immediate future.
Complete College America, or CCA, is a non-profit founded in 2009, largely under the aegis of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. This support from the Gates Foundation is not only monetary, but also provides some assistance in policy direction as well. It’s worth noting that the Gates Foundation also financed a substantial amount of the formation of the contentious Common Core standards for K-12 education.
These foundations allow a billionaire and the minds around him unprecedented and unjustified access to the curricula of schools at the state and federal level, with few state abstentions. These non-profit foundations are private, and as such, have very little legal accountability which certainly brings up concerns about organizational transparency for taxpayers and students alike.
CCA has five ‘Game Changers’ that are often adhered to in affiliated states, the first of which is included in this bill in the form of performance-based funding. It would stand to reason that the other four parts of this policy will invariably come to be proposed in the next few years as well.
The second part of the policy would be the inclusion of corequisite remediation, a policy which would place many students who may be unprepared or underprepared for college-level courses in classes with those of whom are prepared, which would ultimately put every student on the spectrum at a disadvantage. It would present a challenge on those who are unready, and hinder those who are able to take college-level courses without difficulty.
The inclusion of remediation in college-level courses would dilute the content that many professors would be able to teach and would put CCRI students who may need a quick refreshment of skills forgotten since high school or those with learning disabilities at a disadvantage, since they would be forced to catch up to their peers.
Another prong of the full enactment of the policy is to bump the threshold for full-time students up to 15 credit hours per semester, three credits higher than the 12 credit hours it is presently at all three schools, the rough equivalent of another course in a semester. This congested schedule would undoubtedly add a great deal of stress for students already burdened by the myriad obligations that life presents to students with variable work schedules, engaging in hobbies, or perhaps children and other family members that are in their care.
Another goal of the policy would provide an even greater obstacle with those who take learning at their own pace, in the form of block scheduling. Block scheduling is a format of scheduling in which students would be in the same classes in different subjects together for an extended period of time. One may look at block scheduling wistfully and think about time spent in high school, but it should not be allowed in a collegiate environment. While some may appreciate the predictability of the scheduling, the inability of a student to select when to take a particular class could certainly be frustrating. Each student should be able to choose which classes they wish to take, and the time at which to take them.
The final portion of this policy the CCA wishes to implement involves the formation of so-called ‘Guided Pathways’ that would essentially be the student’s entire academic schedule laid out on a piece of paper with no room for variation. This would be made easier with the implementation of several of the last few points proposed allowing for a fully regimented feel to scheduling that is designed to get students through as fast as humanly possible without regard for personal circumstances or intellectual curiosity.
In the Senate version of the bill, part of the text states that: “Graduation data shall include the average excess credits that students have accumulated and the approximate cost of these credits to both the students and the state.” This reads as if taking courses that aren’t immediately necessary to the obtainment of a degree are a waste.
To view courses through which a student may learn a great deal of information as ‘excess’ is an entirely problematic viewpoint that should not be allowed to pervade its way through education at any stage. Curiosity and testing the waters in a subject one may not be familiar with is what makes community colleges a viable option for many students over four year schools.
The Community College of Rhode Island was built in the hopes of sating the hungry minds of the state and region, which is an undeniably noble and just goal. What is now proposed would inevitably open the floodgates and turn CCRI, URI, and RIC into mechanical fast-food education goliaths, shuffling customers out the door before they know what’s on the menu.