Argument Analysis Essay(3-4 Pages)2 Sources
Table of Contents
Argument Analysis Essay
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 Proposal and 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
