Assignment #3 1

Civil Servant for a Day

By
Group 1: Ada Cheung, Lorah Gough, and Douglas Jones

University of British Columbia
Professor Mark Bullen

ETEC 520

Word Count: 3426

Civil Servant for a Day

Introduction - Current System and Vision

Our group will be examining the Community and TechnicalCollege system within WashingtonState. Community and Technical Colleges operate under the direction of the State Legislator through legal guidelines provided by the Revised Codes of Washington (RCW), section 28B.50. ("Community and", n.d.). This code also provides for a governing board to administer funding, procedures and policy known as the State Board of Community and TechnicalColleges. SBCTC ("State board", n.d.) This body will be in charge of implementing our vision and changes.

Under the SBCTC are 38 Community and TechnicalColleges located across the state and all with a consistency of vision and purpose throughout the system. This is to offer open admission to public institutions of higher education that offer quality opportunities for academic and workforce advancement, career development, and lifelong learning to prepare individuals for life and work in a global society.

We will not change this vision; instead, we will advise the new leadership to use the following strategies that enhance and further the current goals. We feel that these strategies will strengthen our state’s internal e-learning programs and this will effectively meet the outside competition, whether it is from foreign or for-profit institutions (Bates, 2001).

  • Keep tuition affordable through efficiencies of collaborations between community colleges and businesses.
  • Share in the development and instruction of courses between colleges.
  • Increasing the access of learning through mixed and online delivery methods.
  • Provide comprehensive student and faculty support services.
  • Use and teach with modern technologies.
  • Encourage authentic workforce business partnerships.
  • Assure course quality.
  • Develop the teaching expertise of instructors.

Current Developments and Recommended Policies and Strategies

In order to achieve our vision, and to successfully establish state guidelines for e-learning, much of the underlying structure must be modified and strengthened. This will require that we focus on policies that increase the state’s role in quality assurance, collaboration and industry partnerships; these goals must be intertwined with well-coordinated on-online accessibility. Further, we are recommending new funding strategies that will make us the most affordable and most accessible higher education system within our state

Online Infrastructure and Accessibility

First, we examine the existing vehicles to delivering on-line curriculum and how they may be enhanced to achieve the new vision.

WAOL

Washington Online ("Washington Online", n.d.) is the main distant education intermediary for community colleges in the state. Washington Online (WAOL) provides the infrastructure (Servers, support, Blackboard software, training, and hosting services.) to community colleges to provide distant education classes. WAOL hoped to facilitate collaborations within the state in order to better serve the state’s student body.

Washington Online has two primary goals:

  • Launch the development and implementation of a comprehensive student-centered system of services
  • Improve instructional quality and increase access to anytime, anywhere learning.

WAOL was originally grant funded, but is now sustained by fees collected from participating community colleges. The fee is $48 per student per credit hour or $240 for each student in a typical 5-credit class.

WAOL does have problems however. There is no oversight or standards for the states collaborative e-learning initiatives. In addition, WAOL allows for duplication of classes and has a financial incentive to do so. As noted above it is paid a fee per student-hour and any restrictions in enrollment would reduce that fee.

The current structure of WAOL should act as the vehicle for consistent delivery and faculty training and support. It should also develop a peer oversight committee to evaluate on-line course integrity. Initial developers of a course could act as lead instructors and chair advisory groups of faculty in the oversight function.

Internet2

Internet2 (I2) is a national high-speed fiber optics network connecting universities and government research entities. Its purpose is to provide a super high-speed non-public network for high quality streaming video, audio, web-casting and other real time events. The Abilene Network is an I2 backbone network consortium that provides advanced network services to over 220 universities, corporate and affiliate members (“Advanced”, n.d.)

K-20 Network

The Washington K-20 Network was launched in 1996 with state funds. This network provides direct access to the I2 network. The goal of this additional network is to provide a single, cost-effective solution to meet the video and data needs of the entire state. There are over 400 statewide education sites included in this network, including primary and secondary schools, colleges and universities, libraries, and museums (“K-20”, n.d.).

These high performance networks enable novel collaborative projects and provide statewide online access and student support in previously unimaginable ways

  • High quality digital, video and audio libraries – accessible 24 x 7
  • Tele-immersion programs – persons may virtually interact even though they are hundreds of miles apart
  • Virtual laboratories – access to scientific instruments, which would never be affordable by individual schools or universities (“The power”, 2007)

Individualized attention is also possible with this system. In a small agricultural community in Washington, a potential high-school dropout student was personally cyber-tutored through Math using the network’s high-end video conferencing system. The student raised her Math grades from an F to a B- her senior year, which enabled her to graduate. This example is just one success story from the K-12 cyber tutoring initiative where pre-service teachers conduct cyber-tutoring sessions with selected K-20 students in isolated communities, who need remedial courses or have special needs (“K-20”, n.d.).

Although thousands of Washington schools can now participate in world-class learning experiences through their connections to this network, most still do not know what it is or how to use it to their advantage. A January 2007 Internet advertisement reads, “Did you know the K-20 Education Network connects thousands of schools across Washington to Internet2? Learn how Internet2 collaboration opportunities are providing world-class learning experiences” (“Explore”, 2007). Washington school administrators, technology advisors, and instructors need to become cognizant of the networks’ capabilities and become a voice for these opportunities.

One way to do this is to provide professional development (PD) in instructional and educational technology for Washington administrators and instructors and offer it via I2. Classes can be co-developed and shared by all. Using I2 for the training will immerse the learners in the technology, which is a best practice for faculty engagement with e-learning (Wilson, 2007). Educators will also become aware of the many potential learning opportunities the K-20 and I2 networks can provide.

A statewide, accredited course should be Washington’s goal like KeeleUniversity’s Certificate in Teaching and Learning with Technology (Bates, 200). This PD course covers the use of communication and information technology in teaching, learning and assessment. Upon completion, Keele’s program provides a nationally recognized certificate and additionally awards 60 credits at Masters level to the educator (“Teaching”, n.d.). Currently, the WashingtonCenter for Information Technology (WCIT), which is endorsed by the presidents of Washington State Community and TechnicalColleges, is a collaborative effort to provide professional development for Washington educators (“National workforce”). However, it does not provide any type of hours towards an advanced degree or a State certificate. Internet2 and the K-20 networks can provide the vehicle for providing authentic, accredited instructional computer training for Washington’s K-20 educators. The state should mandate the completion of one course or a certain number of hours per year as continuing education credits to count towards new faculty training programs or annual performance evaluations for seasoned instructors.

Quality Assurance

The State Board of Community and Technical Colleges (SBCTC) oversees accreditation and sets up standards and frameworks. As Table one depicts, their duties should be expanded to include e-learning within the community college system. This would ensure that community colleges are providing interactive content and design that are of high and consistent quality. As suggested by the Federal government (“The Power”, 2007) the SBCTC would establish a “Consumer’s Guide to Accreditation,” so users would know where to find reliable information about state community colleges and can make informed educational choices. Likewise, if students from our state wish to seek credit for programs they have taken from an out of state, for-profit or foreign institution, that institution’s program must meet our accreditation standards in order to be accepted for state credit.

Table 1

Diagram of Proposed Collaborations, Partnerships and Infrastructure

Collaboration between State Community Colleges

There is already some collaboration between community colleges in Washington. Currently all community colleges recognize and transfer courses not only among themselves, courses may also be transferred into the state’s 4-year institutions through articulation agreements. This is possible largely due to all the community colleges having roughly the same status. (Bates, 2000) There are also active inter-college communities that discuss policies and direction for the community college system as a whole, such as a. “Common Course Numbering” ("Common Course", 2006) system to facilitate transfer and prerequisite analysis between campuses. It may be noted that although this structure may eventually change individual course content, as it will mandate similar content for course numbering consistency, it has met little resistance from faculty. Finally, tuition costs for Washington’s Community Colleges are identical and provide a phenomenal value for the in-state students.

  • In-state tuition: $72/credit hour
  • Out-of-state tuition: $144/credit hour

However, many areas should be improved and/or regulated: There is almost no collaboration in the area of course development. Each school’s faculty has total control over course design and almost all content. College marketing is done only at a local level. Students are mostly unaware of the e-learning opportunities available at other colleges outside of the local marketing area. This is not surprising since the colleges compete for the same students and state reimbursed dollars. There is no local incentive to market another school’s program. Finally, the state provides no funding or other incentives to develop these collaborations.

These practices should stop. At a point in history when for-profit institutes are at our doorstep, the state’s community college system should develop a statewide marketing campaign boasting our quality, cost and accessibility. One of our primary defenses against the insurgence of for-profit institutions is that we offer a great education at more affordable price.

We recommend that the SBCTC gather representatives from community colleges (based on experience and interest) to serve as an advisory board to make proposals and recommendations to the SBCTC on-line initiative. This advisory board would coordinate the development, funding, marketing and oversight of the on-line offerings for the community college system. A comprehensive range of e-learning programs will provide a powerful alternative choice for students considering out of state or private-sector providers (Bates, 2001). The SBCTC has the authority to mandate standards and participation of the member colleges, although a heavy-handed approach would not be recommended. This structure would have little effect on the current on-campus classes and would be seen as a minimal threat to faculty. While low enrollment classes may only be available on-line, higher enrolment classes would be offered at each campus, and in multiple modes.

A successful collaboration would improve course content, help share costs and effort of development, reduce duplication where necessary and guard against competition from outside sources.

Industry Partnerships

Currently there are a variety of agreements between the state’s community colleges and local businesses. These usually take the form of modifying existing or developing new classes and programs to meet industry needs. All vocational departments must have an advisory board consisting of local businesses. These boards help set standards and content of the degree programs. While this is an advisory role, changes in programs must get approval from these boards as part of the approval process.

Further, there are direct connections between major and local employers and the community colleges. For example, The National Workforce Center for Emerging Technologies (NWCET) ("National Workforce", n.d.) is a joint effort between BellevueCommunity College and a number of prominent businesses including Boeing, Microsoft and the National Science Foundation. One of their major undertakings was the development of IT Skill Standards ("IT Skill Standards", n.d.), which is utilized throughout the state. Some of the benefits to the colleges has been infrastructure grants and reduced costs on equipment and software.

Community colleges also cater to industry accreditation guidelines. This is especially true in the IT field. Common examples are CompTIA, (A+, Network+, iNet+, etc.), Cisco (CCIE, CCNP, etc.), and Microsoft (MCSE, MOUSE, MCP, etc.). In essence, the system already has joint course and program planning, joint course development and external accreditation (Bates, 2000).

Successful partnership arrangements are tremendously beneficial to all parties. Industry is particularly interested in on-line, flexible training for working employees. They also value the ability to upgrade skills and meet industry accreditation standards without attending a campus location. The state benefits from a more skilled workforce that matches vocational training with industry specified standards. The community college system is better able to serve its students and enhance funding through increased enrolment and industry support.

While the existing partnerships are successful to a point, there are no formal guidelines to the process, which leaves the system open to misuse. In addition, there are often strings attached to the funding and support received. For instance, almost all of our IT training is Windows based and Microsoft products are prominently visible and encouraged. (Note: this isn’t too surprising; Microsoft is the dominant player in IT and is based in WashingtonState).

A statewide coordination of efforts and evaluation of the nature of the partnerships is lacking. Although many partnerships are beneficial, some are used to further local business interests without regard to student need or long-term viability. In addition, local colleges may commit tremendous resources to a business that is short-lived or quickly turns to other educational options. We recommend that standards should be met before partnerships are developed, with particular attention paid to student need and the long-term viability of the system.

Funding Strategies

First, the state government needs to increase its baseline budget to support the e-learning vision and policies of the community colleges. E-learning is a people-intensive process that would cost money to establish and sustain; hence government funding is necessary to support the SBCTC in overseeing quality content development and collaboration as well as to ensure affordable accessibility and innovation, especially in reviewing projects’ sustainability in terms of technology infrastructure and operation. The funding proposal must reassess its community college allocations:

  • A large portion to support community colleges in fulfilling e-learning missions for innovation, development, and sustainability.
  • Employee benefits to retain skilled e-learning faculty and designers.
  • A technology fund to sustain enrolment, research, and accessibility (“The new”, 2006).

Second, as mentioned previously, we must work in partnership with interested partners in industry. These partnerships would allow business and colleges to share the costs of e-learning developments and innovations. Moreover, agreements can be reached to enhance accessibility for our low-income students. For instance, Microsoft can provide software and Boeing can provide a surplus of used computers to qualified low-income students. In return, these companies may receive marketing benefits, tax deductions and goodwill. Further all residence may access free Internet at libraries or on campuses.

Third, in order to sustain technology plans in any institution, reallocating internal funds is also necessary. This means administrators and faculty need to establish policies that reflect e-learning as a high priority goal for the institution, and reorganize the college’s units and various funds to support the initiative on a long-term basis. This may mean renovating and expanding an old science lab instead of building another new one, merging the student services centre with nearby community colleges into one centre, and/or eliminating the student support department by directing students to virtual help online through the state’s virtual campus. Also, through collaboration with other colleges, costs and expertise in developing e-learning courses may be shared between the colleges involved. As well, if a course becomes too costly to sustain due to low enrollments at a college, it can be adapted to become an e-learning course offered at the virtual campus instead. The idea is that community colleges must recognize something has to be given up or be replaced by e-learning in order for competitive advantage.

Fourth, demand for access to the state’s colleges has been increasing due to more high school students directly entering after graduation, workforce retraining and life-long learners. In order to accommodate this demand with the state’s limited supply of college classroom space, it is proposed that students are encouraged to enroll through WAOL if the courses they want through their enrolled college are full or if times are not convenient. This is so the state’s community colleges would not lose enrollment to other states or nation’s institutions, can increase enrollments to generate more funding, and would still be able to accommodate course availability.