CHAPARRAL

 
Changing the AS/AA Degree

Requirements, a Question of

Local Control

by Glenn DeLange, Academic Senate President

While debate about increasing math and English graduation requirements is not new territory for our California educational institutions, raising this requirement statewide for the Associate of Arts and Associate of Science degrees in California community colleges has lagged behind similar debates in the K-12 system.

  On Friday, February 20, the debate came to Glendale College.  Academic senates—both state and local—develop political stances through the resolution process.  A series of resolutions addressing the issue of math and English graduation requirements at the AS and AA level generated statewide local debates on the issue, and ultimately led to two statewide colloquia designed to expand insight on this debate.

  While attendance at the two colloquia was dominated by English and math instructors—a hand count in the afternoon math session showed that slightly over half of the attendees in the session were math instructors—the debate explored a rich level of pros and cons with many math instructors speaking for as well as against the resolution.  A straw poll of those in attendance, taken late in the afternoon, showed a slight preference for raising the math requirements.

  The resolution’s purpose is raising the math requirement to “the level typically known as intermediate algebra or the equivalent,” with the additional recommendation that the requirement be raised “to a transfer-level course five years after this change is implemented.”  Similarly, the resolution’s purpose is raising the English requirement to

“transfer-level courses.”  The requirements currently in law are somewhat lower:  the minimum English graduation requirement at the AA/AS level is defined as “one level below the first transfer-level composition course;” the minimum math requirement is met by “all mathematics courses above and including Elementary Algebra.”  State law permits raising, but not lowering, these standards at local institutions.

  It is important to note that these resolutions go beyond recommending these changes to local institutions; they propose changing the law.  This change would affectively remove any local control, since both requirements eventually would be raised to the transfer level. It is difficult to imagine any two-year degree exceeding the UC/CSU transfer requirements in these two areas.

The pro arguments (these are the arguments brought forward at the colloquium, not mine) are listed below:

=         Raising the standards increases our credibility with the four-year institutions.  For the AA/AS degree to be meaningful, shouldn’t it require something beyond pre-collegiate level math?

=         The world is becoming more technical.  More math and communication skills are necessary to compete for jobs in this environment.

=         The current math requirements are lower than current high school graduation requirements.

=         An improved economy will require higher skills from our graduates.

=         Employers are asking for greater skill in these areas.

=         These courses are part of the career ladders to higher education. Many AA/AS students raise their educational goals once they obtain the degree.  Having achieved the higher standards, students are more likely to go on.

=         Higher levels of reasoning and communication in these courses transfer to other disciplines.

=         This change will produce consistency across California community college math and English AA/AS curricula.

=         We cheated them once in the K-12 system. Do we want to cheat them again?

  It is not feasible to have a math requirement for the AA/AS degree that is not either a prerequisite for or part of the transfer requirements.

The con arguments (again, not mine) are listed below: 

=         Raising the math and English requirements for the AA/AS degree misunderstands the dual mission of the California community colleges. We already overvalue our transfer mission.

=         Credibility with the UC/CSU system is important only for our transfer students, not our terminal degrees.

=         This entire discussion is taking place absent the rest of the curriculum. These two disciplines are currently the least undervalued in the K-14 curriculum.  There is no evidence that math is any more efficient at encouraging critical thinking than any other discipline, especially liberal arts disciplines.

=         Greater hurdles for our students will decrease the number of students who are seeking these degrees. This could be disastrous during economic crises. (When implemented in Texas this initiative increased the drop level.)

=         The AA/AS degree would take longer for many students.

=         It affects the underprepared the most.

=         Is there evidence that students who know and are able to do what is specified in the course outlines of the currently required courses are incapable of functioning effectively in the workplace?

=         If we write this into Title V, we lose local control over a very sensitive issue.

=         Implementation has broad implications for faculty skills, course sections, designing courses that simultaneously meet both vocational and transfer requirements.  This would most likely be an unfunded mandate.

=         Uniform standards invite uniform assessment of achievement. Do we want to open this door?

  Why mandate it when you can do it locally?

   Some alternative math proposals were floated as well:

(1)      require any course that has Beginning Algebra as a prerequisite;

(2)      assess the lower levels to ensure that our graduates actually know and can do what our courses claim;

(3)      offer useful alternatives such as Statistics for a Democratic Society or Math Appreciation;

(4)      make both requirements one level below transfer level.

  The three core themes of the debate centered around loss of local control, the absence of the other disciplines in the overall debate, and the unintended consequences of this change.  The debate will come to a head at the Statewide Academic Senate meeting in April.  I will be voting on these resolutions at this meeting. Discussion will continue in our Academic Senate, and, hopefully, in division meetings. I would welcome input either through your senate representatives or directly from your division should you wish to voice support or concern for either or these proposals. &

Back to top