English

Prompt: Write an “academic argument” (Ch. 17) in which you make a claim about the effectiveness of the rhetorical devices (Pathos, Ethos and Logos) used in the  “Community College Budget Proposal Response” to the “establishment of a fully online college.” Include a description of the “Kairos” or rhetorical situation (24-25) that lead to the response, and the organization (FACCC (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.) that wrote the response letter. Quote and cite (MLA format) specific examples from the letter and Ch. 1-4 as support (Ch. 22).

Optional reading: the original budget proposal (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. to which FACCC is responding.

Requirements:

  • Argument analysis using the two links: Online Community College Proposaland Community College Budget Proposal Response
  • Minimum 2 quotes from response letter (MLA in-text cited)
  • Minimum 1 quote from proposal
  • Minimum 1 quote from any chapter from 1-4 (MLA in-text cited)
  • MLA Works Cited List
    • Length: 3-4 pages
    • 12 point font, 1 inch margins, double-spaced
    • Title (unique–e.g. not “Essay 1”)
    • Name on document (not just file name)
      • Format for file name: First initial, last name, Literacy Narrative (e.g. PGallagher Literacy Narrative)
      • Note: Do not share a google doc with me–download and attach as instructed
  • Faculty Association of California Community Colleges | 1823 11th Street, Sacramento, CA 95811 916.447.8555 | Fax 916.447.0726 | Info@faccc.org | www.FACCC.org | @FACCC

    January 26, 2018

    Hon. Phil Ting, Chair

    Assembly Budget Committee

    State Capitol Room 6026

    Sacramento, CA 95814

    Re: Community College Budget Proposal

    6870-101-0001

    Dear Assemblymember Ting:

    On behalf of the Faculty Association of California Community Colleges (FACCC), I want to

    express our appreciation to you for your leadership in crafting the community college budget.

    We are also grateful to Governor Brown for his vision and commitment to stabilizing the state’s

    finances and for his demonstrated support of our institutions. FACCC would particularly like to

    commend the Governor for supporting the 10.93 percent community college share of the

    Proposition 98 split in the 2018-19 proposal. Adherence to the statutory split allows both

    community colleges and K-12 to appropriately plan for the coming year while also removing

    competition for resources between the two segments.

    FACCC has taken the following positions on the specifics of the Governor’s January Budget

    proposal:

    2.51% COLA; $60 million for growth

    Response: FACCC supports and appreciates both.

    $46 million to fund the California College Promise as contained in AB 19 [(Santiago) of 2017]

    Response: While FACCC supports a state buy-down of student fees, it does not agree with the

    provision in AB 19 that restricts these funds to colleges that participate in Guided Pathways. This

    is inconsistent with the Guided Pathways legislation which provides discretion to local academic

    senates on whether to adopt this program.

    Similarly, FACCC notes that elements of student financial aid were historically funded outside

    of Proposition 98. We request the Legislature consider other programmatic improvements for

    community colleges with the $46 million, like increasing full-time faculty or part-time faculty

    equity, office hours, or health benefits, and fund AB 19 from non-98 sources.

    Faculty Association of California Community Colleges | 1823 11th Street, Sacramento, CA 95811 916.447.8555 | Fax 916.447.0726 | Info@faccc.org | www.FACCC.org | @FACCC

    Hon. Phil Ting

    Community College Budget

    Page Two

    $120 million ($20 million ongoing; $100 million one-time) to establish a fully online

    community college

    Response: While FACCC fully endorses the goal of expanding educational access to working

    adults who are traditionally older than our full-time students, it respectfully opposes this proposal

    and would redirect all or part of these funds to the Online Education Institute.

    Despite the agreed upon goal of serving working adults age 25-34 (with the possibility of

    expanding the target to age 65) who have attained a high school diploma and possibly some

    college, but no college degree, there is no evidence from the Governor’s proposal that the

    intended population in California has been contacted through such mechanisms as surveys or

    focus groups to warrant the development of a new, fully online college. For the substantial sums

    proposed, it is inappropriate to draw a conclusion exclusively from a limited number of out-of-

    state studies.

    This concern extends not just to the need for a new college, but also to whether the target

    population has sufficient access to technology. While smart phones offer evidence of

    connectivity, they do not necessarily serve as the best mechanism for distance education.

    Moreover, FACCC believes this separate online college will compete with existing institutions.

    Even under the Governor’s proposed funding formula, a diversion of student enrollment to the

    online college could drain resources from our 114 colleges.

    Paradoxically, in the effort to foster educational inclusion to a new group of students—many of

    whom are undoubtedly struggling to keep pace with ever-changing technology—we would, in

    fact, be segregating them from the larger body of campus offerings. FACCC believes that

    distance education through online courses is an appropriate strategy that stands together with

    hybrid and in-class instruction. A fully online college that exists outside of our established

    institutions limits the student understanding and potential of what higher education has to offer.

    If the state’s emphasis is on student success as defined by completion, this online proposal is not

    the way to go. San Jose State University’s experiment with Massive Open Online Courses found

    the success rates lower than traditional courses with those most able to benefit outside the target

    underrepresented audience. In moving forward with this discussion, we should not only consider

    the experience of San Jose State University, but also how critical support services, like DSPS

    and EOPS could participate. Without serious attention to whether student success is a priority for

    this college, we are liable to develop a model that falls far short of its goal.

    Public support for California Community Colleges has been overwhelmingly positive, largely

    because they are instruments of local government which contribute to community identity. By

    definition, a state-run program outside the realm of local control detracts from that local identity

    and could confuse the public on the purpose of the institutions.

    Faculty Association of California Community Colleges | 1823 11th Street, Sacramento, CA 95811 916.447.8555 | Fax 916.447.0726 | Info@faccc.org | www.FACCC.org | @FACCC

    Hon. Phil Ting

    Community College Budget

    Page Three

    FACCC also opposes any diminution of minimum qualifications for the faculty, and would

    oppose a “meet and confer” process for working conditions.

    The Legislature should redirect all or part of this money to the successful Online Education

    Institute and use these additional resources to prioritize lifelong learning for those age 25-65. In

    this era of maximizing spending efficiencies, FACCC believes this would be far more effective

    than developing a new college whose start-up expenses, including accreditation, would be

    extremely high, and whose ongoing costs would likely detract from our existing colleges.

    $175 million for transition costs to a new funding formula

    While FACCC recognizes the limitations of the current formula, it is mindful that any change not

    solely based on student enrollment is liable to result in per-student differences between districts.

    The inevitable result of this disparity would be a call for the lower revenue districts to equalize

    with their higher revenue counterparts, leading back to the current dynamic.

    Nonetheless, FACCC believes that a blended formula based on incentives is worth evaluating

    provided the correct incentives are chosen. Without strict adherence to the percentage division of

    50/25/25, FACCC would recommend a division based on the following:

    A) At least 50% based on enrollment as this is the best and most equitable barometer upon which to build a funding model;

    B) Half the remaining percentage devoted to education of lower income and underrepresented students based on a blended formula of: 1) Promise Grant and Pell

    Grants; 2) Enrollment of foster youth, welfare-to-work, active military and military

    veterans, and regional unemployment rate; 3) Participation in DSPS,

    EOPS/CARE/NextUp, CalWORKs and other statewide support programs.

    C) Final percentage devoted to recognized practices that contribute to student success. This would be a blended formula of a district’s progress toward: 1) 75/25 full- to part-time

    faculty ratio; 2) Part-time faculty equity (including office hours and health benefits); 3)

    Academic counselor to student ratios.

    From this formula, the Chancellor’s Office could measure such outcomes as attainment of

    degrees and certificates on a regular interval and propose research-based adjustments as needed.

    Categorical Programs

    FACCC opposes a wholesale decategorization of programs, but understands the need to examine

    the track record of categoricals through the policy process. Many of the categorical programs in

    student services and part-time faculty were created to fill a need that was not sufficiently

    addressed at the local level. Support services like EOPS have stood the test of time because they

    have demonstrated accountability and deserve state resources for their record of success.

    Faculty Association of California Community Colleges | 1823 11th Street, Sacramento, CA 95811 916.447.8555 | Fax 916.447.0726 | Info@faccc.org | www.FACCC.org | @FACCC

    Hon. Phil Ting

    Community College Budget

    Page Four

    The part-time faculty categoricals continue to serve a need, but have been so underfunded as to

    hamper their effectiveness. Decategorization of those programs does not cure the problems of

    insufficient compensation, office hours, or health benefits. Newer categoricals, like the Student

    Success and Support Program, deserve higher levels of scrutiny specifically because they have

    not withstood the test of time and may be subject to corrective adjustments where appropriate.

    Capital Outlay

    FACCC strongly supported Proposition 51 on the November 2016 ballot which promised voters

    $2 billion infrastructure investment in our community colleges. While the proposed budget funds

    five new and 15 ongoing capital projects, there are still more shovel-ready projects which can

    benefit from this money. A delay in construction will likely result in increased costs and

    diminished voter confidence in future bond financing.

    FACCC would also like to draw your attention to the compelling priorities that are missing from

    the 2018-19 budget proposal:

    Funds to increase the ratio of full-time faculty. FACCC is grateful for the 2015-16

    augmentation of $62.3 million for this purpose and urges a second installment to make further

    progress toward the 75% goal of credit classroom instruction taught by full-time faculty

    [Education Code Section 87482.6(a)]. Although our students are asked to give a full-time effort

    toward their studies, they are denied access to full-time faculty. The latest published figures

    show only 56.4% of credit instruction is currently taught by full-timers.

    This is also noted in an accreditation standard for community colleges which reads:

    III.A.7. The institution maintains a sufficient number of qualified faculty, which includes full time

    faculty and may include part time and adjunct faculty, to assure the fulfillment of faculty

    responsibilities essential to the quality of educational programs and services to achieve

    institutional mission and purposes.

    Support for part-time faculty through pay equity, and health benefits, and office hours.

    Although the community college system is dependent upon part-time faculty labor, it is

    unwilling to recognize or compensate them for their contribution. While FACCC appreciates the

    increase to the Part-Time Faculty Office Hours program in the current year budget, the fund is

    still woefully deficient. It is time for the state to recognize the value that the over 40,000 part-

    time faculty professionals bring to the California Community Colleges by fully funding all three

    of these programs.

    Like assessment, placement, and orientation, access to full-time faculty and professionalization

    of part-time faculty compensated office hours, health benefits, and pay equity should be

    considered functions of student success. Students at all colleges should expect to interact with

    full-time faculty and fully supported part-time faculty. This requires both attention and resources

    from the state.

    Faculty Association of California Community Colleges | 1823 11th Street, Sacramento, CA 95811 916.447.8555 | Fax 916.447.0726 | Info@faccc.org | www.FACCC.org | @FACCC

    Hon. Phil Ting

    Community College Budget

    Page Five

    Professional development. With increasing advancements in the disciplines offered at our

    institutions, and with the new wave of faculty hiring, it is time to reconsider the limitation of

    professional development for specific purposes and allow it to be locally determined for

    individual faculty needs. Building a world-class institution of higher education means allowing

    faculty to connect with their peers in professional conferences to advance their subject matter

    expertise and ability to perform their jobs. This should be a standardized part of the budget upon

    which our faculty can depend.

    Student services (EOPS, DSPS, CalWORKs) and mental health. FACCC is grateful for the

    restoration of all these programs and urges consideration of programmatic expansion where

    appropriate. Mental health services are also a priority for the faculty, and consideration should be

    given to supplementing the $4.5 million one-time funds in the current budget.

    Student Services (NextUp). The expansion of the NextUp program for foster youth has caused a

    statewide deficiency of $5 million, which should be addressed in the 2018-19 budget.

    Veterans Centers. As a cosponsor and founding member of the coalition sponsoring the annual

    Veterans Summit, FACCC encourages additional resources for active military and military

    veteran students.

    FACCC is once again grateful to you for your consideration of our positions and to the Governor

    for his support of community colleges. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions.

    Sincerely,

    Jonathan Lightman, CAE

    Executive Director

    cc: Hon. Kevin McCarty, Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 2 Chair

    Hon. Jay Obernolte, Assembly Budget Committee Vice Chair

    Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 2 on Education Finance

    Lark Park, Office of Governor Brown

    Mark Martin, Assembly Budget Committee Consultant

    Katie Sperla, Republican Consultant

    Mónica Henestroza, Office of Speaker Rendon

    Christian Osmena, Vice Chancellor, California Community Colleges

    Maritza Urquiza, Department of Finance

    Edgar Cabral, Legislative Analyst’s Office

    Lizette Navarette, Community College League of California

    Julie Bruno, President, Academic Senate for California Community Colleges

    Courtney Cooper, President, Student Senate for California Community Colleges

Order now and get 10% discount on all orders above $50 now!!The professional are ready and willing handle your assignment.

ORDER NOW »»