Sorry to be posting THE SAME post again, but something weird happened with the formatting on my “Happy New Year’s!” post when it got uploaded to facebook.  And…I am anal enough that I want a more readable copy on my FB page as well.  So…here ya are again!:

******original post******

2010.  Wow.

I can’t think of a decade that went by faster than this past one.  I’ve spent 7 1/2 years of the ’00’s in Pennsylvania.  That means that I have lived here longer than DC (3years), Oxford, OH (4 years), and almost as long as I lived in Syracuse (8 years).  Pretty wild.  And…what’s really got me thinking…of my 7 1/2 years at Kutztown University, I’ve been the coordinator of composition for all but two of those years.  That’s right…I’m one of those people who took on the reigns of writing program administration well before I was tenured.  I’ve been a tenured coordinator of composition for only a year and half.   Believe me, I was told all during grad school that taking on WPA duties before tenure was a bad idea.  Practitioners in our field also recommend strongly against it.  But, at the time it didn’t feel like there was too much choice if I was going to be able to help build our composition program–one of the key reasons I came to KU.

At the end of my second year, ten faculty in our department retired; one tenure-track faculty member got married and joined her husband on the West Coast; and, our then Chair decided to tell us during finals week that he had accepted a new job and would not be with us the following fall.  He even passed around pictures of his new house in Michigan.  I remember that moment as both daunting and exciting.  Daunting in that our faculty was gutted by almost a third and we had to scramble to elect and new chair and figure out how to staff all of our courses by the fall semester.  Exciting because many of those people who were retiring were the very faculty members who seemed committed to internal factionalism and personal conflict.  In one fell swoop, that dysfunctional departmental dynamic would be gone for the most part.  We had the opportunity to build a new, collaborative department.

Our coordinator of composition at the time decided to run for department chair.  She and I had talked about me taking over the coordinator position, but this would mean I would do so a year ahead of time.  I didn’t see any real alternatives, no matter how conflicted I was about my premature entry into the world of writing program administration. I can’t pretend that my first couple of years at the coordinator were easy.  It was a huge adjustment that was marked by my own, at times, ambivalent relationship to administrative work.  But, in looking back on these 5 1/2 years, I think I can say that I’ve been able to do some pretty good things here.

I think my biggest contribution has been to privilege growing the program.  This has meant: 1) prioritizing building a core faculty in composition and rhetoric; 2) cultivate intellectual spaces to support that core faculty and all faculty teaching composition; and 3) build an undergraduate (and eventually graduate) concentration in Composition, Rhetoric, and Literacy Studies (the name came later, actually). Since I took over in 2004, we’ve hired three new faculty in composition and rhetoric and we are in the middle of hiring our fourth.  We’ve also converted a temporary faculty member–who is completing her PhD in composition and rhetoric–to a tenure-track position.  So, by fall 2010 we will have increased the number of comp/rhet faculty from three to eight.  Not bad.

In terms of creating an intellectual space, I started a reading group in Composition, Rhetoric, and Literacy Studies that meets monthly to discuss current scholarship in the field.  Thanks to the great work of Amy Lynch-Biniek and the Composition Conference Committee, we’ve expanded our annual undergraduate composition conference to include students taking composition and rhetoric courses at all levels.  We’ve also brought in keynote speakers such at Keith Gilyard, Rosa Eberly, and Steve Parks–and this spring Susan Wells will be joining us.

We have also revised and added several new courses to the department’s offerings.  In my first year as coordinator, we added ENG 430 “Rhetorical Traditions/Contemporary Renditions.”  Last year, we added my course ENG 316 “Rhetoric, Democracy, Advocacy.”  And this past semester, we added ENG 260 “Issues in Composition and Rhetoric” (Lynch-Biniek) and ENG 274 “Women, Writing, and Rhetoric” (Cullum).  Linda Cullum also worked with Lisa Weckerle from Speech/Communications to update ENG/SPE 335 “Rhetoric of Literature.”  Thanks in large part to our Chair (and fellow compositionist) Janice Chernekoff, ENU 405 “Teaching of Writing” runs every semester and is a required course for all Secondary Education/English majors.  All of these new courses are part of our proposed concentration in Composition, Rhetoric, and Literacy Studies, which I expect to have cleared all the curricular hurdles by the end of spring 2010 semester.  It’s really been quite an amazing run so far.

Like anything else, I could also list the many things I wish I had done, done better, or didn’t do.  But, I’m pretty good at beating myself up about those things on a daily basis.  In the spirit of the New Year, I thought I’d cut myself a little slack, look back at some accomplishments, and remind myself that the work is worth it.  Now I can actually begin planning for the next step!

Hmmmmm….where can we go from here?

Well, actually, the fall semester wasn’t delayed at all.  Only my post to this blog .

Welcome back everyone!  I have to say that  it was pretty incredible coming back this semester and having seven–SEVEN– comp/rhet faculty at our first meeting.  We’ve come a long way in terms of faculty hiring and program development in a very short time.  When I took over the Coordinator position, we had three comp/rhet faculty members.

There has also been a pretty rapid increase in student interest in upper-level composition courses.  ENG 430 Rhetorical Traditions/Contemporary Renditions, went live in the Spring 2007 semester and this coming Spring, my new course ENG 316 Rhetoric, Democracy, Advocacy will be offered for the first time.  Amy Lynch-Biniek authored a new course, ENG XXX Composition and Rhetoric Studies which is making its way through the curricular process and will be one of the key courses for our proposed concentration in Composition, Rhetoric, and Literacy Studies.  Linda Cullum will be submitting her new course, ENG XXX Women, Writing, Rhetoric to the curriculum committees this semester.  In addition, our ENU 405 Teaching of Writing, continues to fill every semester with graduate and undergraduate students. Needless to say, we are excited about the direction our program is headed!

This semester I hope to get all our comp/rhet faculty up and running on this blog too.  This way you can hear from all of us…of different approaches to teaching, latest scholarship, thoughts on writing and rhetoric, musings, and random contributions to this little space.

I am going to leave for now…but will return soon!  Thanks for taking the time to check in.

Last night I wrote that there seemed to be a shift in yesterday’s meeting away from cut scores and to a discussion of what our writing work group thought more important.  Well, today Ira Blake, Assistant Vice Chancellor of Academic and Student Affairs, has been waving the “cut score” banner again this morning.  She said that our work groups need to come up with cut scores where we should begin.  

I just asked Ira Blake for a very clear statement about what are task was.  I asked, “so, let me get this straight, the task of our work group is to come up with cut scores.”  Her response, “yes.”  Yes, she did say a lot about us being experts and our imput important and that it was important that we had discussions about what is college ready, but in the end, the task is a cut score.  It will be interesting to see what will happen if our writing work group does not/refuses to come up with a cut score.

So, at today’s meeting of PaSSHE College Ready and Placement Work Group we’re hearing from Kathleen Howley, Assistant Vice Chancellor of Academic and Student Affairs.  At the moment, we’re talking about course numbering. Yes, course numbering.  We were just given a handout showing course equivalencies and course numbers across the State System.  As it turns out, Kutztown is the only campus that has Gen Ed courses–like composition–that begin with a zero (0) (ENG 022, 023, 025, etc.).  According to Howley and Ira Blake (also Assistant Vice Chancellor of Academic and Student Affairs), it  is Board of Governor policy that all introductory courses should be listed as 100 level courses.  Apparently, 0-level courses are supposed to be “remedial” classes.  So, despite the fact that equivalencies/transferability has already been established by a State organization TAOC (Transfer Articulation Oversight Committee), the assumption is being made by legislators and PaSSHE administration that we (KU) are giving college credit for remedial courses.  

This just gets more and more amazing each day.

It’s been an interesting day here in Harrisburg as day one of PaSSHE’s College Ready and Placement Work Group comes to a close.  Interesting because there has been a bit of a shift over the course of the day when it seemed like the sole purpose of this work group was going to be to choose one of the major standardized placement exams–COMPASS, ACCUPLACER, or ASSET (notice all of them are in all-caps)–as the standard for the whole State System.  By the day’s end that imperative was less clear.

The day alternated between whole group sessions led by Vice Chancellor Jim Moran and break out sessions: math, writing, and reading.  The general sessions were not super formal.  Rather, they consisted of Moran making some preliminary comments and report-backs/questions from the break out groups.  Initally Moran say that by the end of our two-days here in Harrisburg, he wanted us to come up with “baseline cut-scores” for each of the areas.  In other words, we were supposed to come up with the scores that would determine when a student would be forced into “remedial” courses.  The primary target was to “identify a standard across the system for college comp and intro to math.  Moran said that this is part of a larger effort–a “two-pronged effort”–to standardize the State’s definition of “college ready” and to create a common set of criteria for college placement.  The other prong is to standardize the entire State’s high school curriculum.  Moran said that PA was one of only five states that does not have a standard curriculum across the state.  

Our discussions were supposed to be guided by “all the research,” or at least the research that we were provided less than a week before today’s meeting.  Most of this research was conducted by ACT and some organizations assosicated with college testing agencies.  In fact, one of the key documents, “Rigor at Risk,” published by the ACT explicitly saw its study as a follow up to the federal government’s 1983 publication, A Nation at Risk.  The report suggests that since the publication of A Nation at Risk, 

almost every state has made significant efforts t o improve its educational system.  Nearly a quarter-century later, in a climate in which U.S. workers are dealing with new forms of technology and facing challenges of a global economy, it is not only reasonable but increasingly urgent to ask: Have we succeeded in fulfilling the goals of A Nation at Risk? (ACT, “Rigor at Risk).  

Of course we might draw attention to the fact that the 1983 study may have contributed to our current problems by narrowly defining curriculum to suit specific educational agendas.  I think it would be useful to revisit John Trimbur’s “Literacy and the Discourse of Crisis” in the midst of this discussion.  

Anyway, at several points in the discussion, Moran suggested that he would prefer one standard placement process across the State System.  However, he stopped short of saying this was necessary.  But, at several points he suggested that any “locally designed assessment” (directed self-placment being one of them) would need to demonstrate how the results could be compared to one of the standardized tests or standard State placement processes.  He said that it would be up to the people responsible at that university to “assess whether or not it would be worth the effort” to demonstrate compatabilty.  This approach seems very much like the State System’s buy-in to the  ”Voluntary System of Accountability,” which I don’t have time to go into here. 

There seems to be some pressure coming from the State Legislature on this score.  Moran told us that “it would not surprise me if there is some move for legislative action on remediation.”  In fact, he is giving testimony before the Republican Caucus tomorrow morning on precisely this topic.  

The good thing about today’s process was the breakout sessions with other faculty across the State System.  One of the most productive aspects of the day was that we talked about our different approaches to placement, different student bodies, and different configurations of composition (some universities have two semesters of comp, others just one).  If anything, I think most members of this group are committed to keeping local control over the placement process.  While no one was opposed to discussing the kind of skills and practices that are necessary for a student to succeed in our first-year composition classes, I remain concerned that the outcome of our work is beyond our control.  For example, we could generate some very good principles and the State System could then turn around and look at the standardized tests that seem to reflect those principles.  I am not suggesting that is what will happen, only one of my concerns.

I’ll have to leave it at that for now.  I’m meeting some of my fellow compers for dinner.  Hopefully, I’ll be back later with an update.

Late morning/lunch work “writing group” was interesting. Lots of discussion at the way placement happens at all 14 State System universities. Some have tests, but a couple institutions do variations of directed self-placement. Other universities do a portfolio system. There seems to be a general agreement in the writing group that it might be possible to lay out some consistencies across the 14 as to what we expect in college level writing, which is DIFFERENT from what you might find in a placement test. For example, flexibility in responding to different audiences; writing in different genres; incorporating research.

Yet, there is a wide range in the preparation of students across the State System schools. Jim Moran in clear that some universities WILL HAVE TO change the way they do placement…although he is not being specific as to which universities. Everything, however, points to directed self-placement as a “problem” that is not assessable in a way that will be consistent across all 14.

There seems to be a general “sense” at the table that we can distinguish between what we expect in college-level writing and what are some of the barriers students face (at least that’s how I am trying to argue the case). What comes up consistently is the lack of funding from the the State System to support best practices–such as required portfolios from all new students, or even the kind of directed self-placement we do at Kutztown.  

Moran seems to be genuinely invested in the process, but is non-committal to guarantee funding to support best practices. 

Just moments ago, we had a pretty heated debate over the question of “remediation” and what kind of courses we are talking about.

Hey all.  So, guess where I am.  Harrisburg.  I just checked into a Days Inn at around 11:30pm on Monday.  Tomorrow will begin what is being billed as a “Work Group” to determine a common definition of “college ready” and to “standardize” placement  in “remedial” courses. Presumably the outcomes of this group will contribute to a standard for Math and Writing across the State System.  

Now, anyone who knows me and/or knows our program at KU might question what it is that I am doing here.  Well, as the Coordinator of Composition I was asked to represent KU for the “writing” work group.  To be honest, I don’t know exactly what to expect.  The initial request was fairly vague.  However, a couple of days ago, we got another  email laying out the agenda a little more.  That email came with several attachments (which I will post tomorrow).  

Since I believe in working in public where we can all see what’s going on and contribute to the conversation, I am posting the email I received in it’s entirety.  I wil also be posting updates to this blog to let you know what seems to be the general thrust of the meeting.  The one article we were  asked to read before our meeting tomorrow is a policy brief called “It’s Not About the Cut Score: Redefining Placement Assessment Policyto Improve Student Success” authored by Michael Lawrence Collins for a Boston policy institute called Jobs for the Future. 

So, in the meantime, here’s the email I received on May 6th:

Colleagues: 

Thank you for your willingness to come to Harrisburg to develop a more consistent model for determining the standards for “college ready” and placement across PASSHE.  We have attached a number of documents to help shape the discussion and would request that you review the paper titled, “It’s Not About the Cut Score” prior to the meeting.

Let me first provide you with some context for our discussions, then provide some background for the attachments and finally talk about the details regarding arrangements and compensation. 

Context:

The primary goal is to achieve consistency in the definition of “college-ready” across the System.  Right now the standards vary considerably from university to university. The “Achieve the Dream” initiative at community colleges has focused on this effort and Pennsylvania is participating in that effort. We believe that a common standard, not necessarily a common test, will, taken in context, be one of the factors that will serve to improve the quality of the preK-16 educational system across the Commonwealth.

One may ask: “Why now?”  We believe that we have the support of the current administration and PDE to move in this direction; community colleges are receptive to us taking the lead and are willing to join in on the effort at the appropriate time. 

Concurrent with this effort is an attempt to identify for the System a high school curriculum required for regular admission (e.g., four (4) years English; three (3) years Math including Algebra II; three (3) years Science, etc).  A set of common placement standards for reading and mathematics helps set the expectation for such a curriculum.

During the System-level deliberations related to the standards for concurrent enrollment programs, the CAOs identified a set of standards that students should meet to be identified as “college-ready.” Also, Middle States’ teams have connected placement standards with measures of student learning outcomes in assessing general education programs and inquired about the consistency across System universities. 

Moreover, as part of the transfer and articulation legislation, standards for transfer of foundation courses were established. However, in some cases courses listed in the System are identified as remedial courses, which should not transfer. Currently, legislative hearings on remediation are taking place and the concept of consistency has been raised. Several states have moved forward with creating standards, either at the state or System level (e.g., New Jersey Community Colleges just recently agreed on common standards).

The interest in the Keystone Examination (formerly known as graduation competency assessments – exit exams from high school) has raised the ante in all of the aforementioned discussions. Local assessments within this context are acceptable only if the local district demonstrates comparability to the basic standard.

As the Office of the Chancellor has prepared the data for these hearings, it is increasingly difficult to explain the variation among our universities in the number of students required to take remedial or developmental courses.

The advent of the PIMS project (Pennsylvania Information Management System) and the connection of the higher education databases to the preK-12 databases (made possible through the use of the PA Secure ID effort) enable significant opportunities to provide detailed feedback to high schools on the success of students and nature of the curriculum. Consistency in standards allows for greater power of analysis to provide better feedback for improvements and curriculum revisions.

We also recognize that setting a “cut score” will not be sufficient and revisions will be required over the next several years as we are able to research the success of students. The ability to track students through the high school, community college and PASSHE will enable us to have an excellent database to make subsequent revisions as necessary.

A few years ago there was considerable discussion about whether four-year institutions should be in the business of remediation. We believe there is clear recognition that in Pennsylvania, with limited access to community colleges and given our mission as Pennsylvania’s public universities, the PASSHE recognizes that we will be involved in some form of developmental education to provide students with higher education opportunities, and that we should have in place better assessments and support for students that have potential.

We believe that now is the time for PASSHE to take a leadership role in the Commonwealth to set standards to improve the education of all students. Placement testing is but one aspect to this larger effort but is important in helping set the context of expectation.

Note that this does NOT mean that the admission standards across the universities are to be common or that we intend for universities to become more or less selective. Those decisions are governed by the universities themselves and by other factors. We are also looking at how to revise the accountability and performance funding measures to better reflect the access and quality mission of PASSHE and may need to consider how any change in the placement process affects those key measures.

Resources:

An excellent paper to read is, “It’s Not About the Cut Score” put out by the Achieve the Dream initiative.

We have attached material that details the System level reports from universities about the number of students taking “remedial” courses. We also attached a preliminary paper that provides a summary analysis of some of this data.  In addition, included are some summary data of college and university standards we collected a few years ago (and may require updating).

ACT has published several major studies focusing on the readiness of students based on performance on the ACT. “Readiness” is defined as the likelihood of receiving a C or better in the first college course.  Note that although several states are using the ACT as a placement exam (e.g., Arkansas), most researchers agree that the SAT should not be similarly used and should be used only as a possible screening tool to determine who should take a placement test.  We have included material from ACT.

Note that the link to the foundation courses that are approved for transfer is www.patrac.org

Details:

We are asking that you make your own hotel and travel arrangements. Attached is a list of hotels in the area with links to their website so that you can view their facilities when making reservations. Reimbursement and compensation will be through your own university. Travel and meals must fit within the standard PASSHE travel guidelines. To assure that your “take home” compensation is approximately $500/day, we have set aside $1,700 gross compensation for each of you. 

NOTE:  You will receive two additional e-mails with the reference material.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aorr6IzvG5k&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x5d1719&color2=0xcd311b]

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZJ9e3zxZ8I&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x5d1719&color2=0xcd311b]