An updated look at the reading co-requisite
By Jessica Skaggs
Last semester, the college decided to go forward with the previous administration’s reading initiative known as the “Reading Readiness requirement” effective for the current semester. In doing so, there was campus-wide reaction, as normal procedures for course changes was not followed. Such course changes are expected and required to go through the faculty-driven group Educational Affairs.
“What happened [as a result] was last semester in Ed Affairs, the decision was made to invite individual programs and departments to decide for themselves whether they wanted the requirement on their courses,” Dennis Arjo, Educational Affairs member and professor/Chair of Philosophy and Religion, said. “That happened and in January the results of that process were sort of collected and that’s when number one the implementation problem for the spring enrollment became very, very clear, and the results of the faculty and departments and programs deciding for themselves ended up with a very uneven distribution of the requirement.”
In the weeks to follow that meeting, questions and concerns regarding the challenges students would face in the upcoming enrollment periods, as well as the decisions of faculty groups continued. On Feb. 12, Educational Affairs met again, where discussion of the reading initiative occurred. It became obvious that classes which were expected to have a lot of reading had the requirement, while other classes that were also expected to have a lot of reading did not.
“That just kind of made things even more questionable,” Arjo said. “And so we discussed whether or not we should proceed with a policy that was causing a problem with enrollment, inconveniencing large amount of students and seemed to be very inconsistent. That’s when we started talking about maybe at this point we should raise the white flag and realize this is not working.”
However, raising the white flag would not be the perfect solution, as there were some specified courses that particular departments requested the requirement to be included.
“We had to be careful about how to proceed because we had colleagues who had done exactly what Ed Affairs had told them to do, and we had to keep focused on this is what students need but we also had to balance that with well we’ve had faculty who said, ‘this is what I need for my classes for my own students,'” Beth Edmonds, Educational Affairs member and math professor, said.
The decision made at the past meeting was done after all the options were looked at, according to Edmonds.
The options included the complete dismantling of the initiative, including the courses in which faculty had requested the requirement to be included, the dismantling of the requirement for all courses except those who had requested the requirement, or to leave the requirement as it was. However, the vice president of Educational Affairs Andy Anderson had additional recommendations which would be pursued in concurrence with whatever motion Educational Affairs made.
“Behind each of these options was Andy Anderson’s view of then we’re going to form this committee to really study what was going on, and what was best for the whole group of students and faculty as well. So that was really where it was like do this, with this committee etc.,” Edmonds said. “So then once those three options were laid out and we had some conversation, that was about two hours and finally someone said okay we have to do something. [So we voted to] remove the Reading Readiness requirement except for the 12 courses that faculty specifically said that they wanted it for, with the understanding that there will be more study to come.”
The college will continue to identify students who need additional assistance in reading through Compass assessing, of which Anderson’s committee will continue to look into further and seeks to improve. For those students whose compass score is below 80 in reading, they will be asked to see a counselor with what is known as a “SC” or see counselor hold. From there, counselors will encourage and advise students to get take additional reading courses, as well as fill out a new form known as the “Johnson County Community College Reading Plan.” Students will sign the form, acknowledging their test scores indicate that extra reading courses are recommended for their success.
“It’s a counseling tool that we will use when working with students whose Compass scores reflect that they need additional reading skill development,” Gloria Rosso, counselor said. “This will help the student make informed choices regarding the options presented to him or her. The student’s decision regarding his or her choices will also be reflected on the form.
The form will also include contacts to available resources for students who need additional assistance. Counselors will be able to discuss each resource with the students and help them decide which would be the best option for them to pursue.
“This will give us a chance to really review some data to see how students do who chose not to take the reading class as opposed to those students who go ahead and do take the reading class, so we can gather some data that will help us in evaluating the decisions,” Anderson said. “So in terms of the Reading Readiness issue, its morphed, changed into another issue that’s really going to be based on advising students to make good choices and so that is where that has come to rest and I think Ed Affairs and the faculty feel pretty good with where it ended up.”
Going forward Anderson believes a better solution can be met.
“In some ways the Reading Readiness as it unfolded, really grew out of an effort to try and direct as best we could the students who needed the additional help as was indicated by scores, but we basically developed a policy to try and help three or 400 students probably a semester, but it became perhaps an obstacle to the 15,000,” Anderson said. “What we really need is to take a more global approach and come up with the best strategy for giving students good advice on what they should be taking and developing a set of prerequisites if we need them, and wherever we need. However we approach it, we need a way that facilitates the whole population of students to enroll in their programs and to be advised as effectively as possible and then whatever strategies we take around reading, around developmental reading, developmental writing, developmental math, should not be obstacles to everyone. It poses interesting challenges but I think we can get there.”
Contact Jessica Skaggs, managing editor, at jskaggs4@jccc.edu.