Tag Archives: education

Student Leader Responsibilities to Hazing on College Campuses

Posted on by
Reply

hazing thumbs downAs a student leader, do you see yourself in a position in your club, group, organization, or athletic team?  Or do you recognize the role and responsibilities you have to your fellow students you lead?  The view of a position can hinder student leaders from taking ownership for the responsibilities you have for your fellow members or teammates.  You may think or assume that hazing does not happen on our college campus.

The term hazing generally draws society’s attention to fraternities and sororities.  However, institutions also experience hazing incidents within athletic teams, marching bands, and campus organizations.  Although specific to each university, campus clubs and organizations may cover areas from academics, club sports, co-curricular activities, intramurals, and social groups on campus.  For institutions in Texas, the State Legislature defines hazing as:  any intentional knowing, or reckless act, occurring on or off campus of an educational institution, by one person alone or acting with others, directed against a student that endangers the mental or physical health or safety of a student for the purpose of pledging, being initiated into, affiliating with, holding office in, or maintaining membership in any organization whose members are students at an educational institution (§ 37.151.6).

Research from the HazingPrevention.org indicates that over half of college students involved in clubs, teams, and organizations experience hazing.  The study Hazing in View: College Students At Risk: National Study of Student Hazing by Allen & Madden reveals the vast array of areas across the campus where hazing occurs.  Although the percent of students experiencing hazing in an honor society is far less than those who experience it with an athletic team or fraternity and sorority, the fact remains that it is still happening.  Hazing rituals date back to the 1800’s.  The punishment for hazing incidents in more recent court cases appear more frequent and at times with higher consequences and penalties than hazing cases in the 1970’s.  Nuwer with the Hazing Clearinghouse shares that hazing incidents have “claimed at least one life a year on college campuses from 1970 to 2014” (p. 1).  In a 40-year comparison, Bauer-Wolf (2017) in a recent article contrasts how Chuck Stenzel’s death in 1978 saw no criminal charges brought forward whereas Timothy Piazza’s case in 2017 prosecuted 18 people and eight received charges of involuntary manslaughter.  Bauer-Wolf (2017) describes the Piazza case and convictions as “one of the biggest prosecutions of hazing in history” (p. 1).

Longstanding traditions requiring campus administrators’ purview may or may not directly involve hazing, but rather impact the safety of their students.  Van Jura declares, traditions “have the potential to teach students about the history of their institution, provide a means of building community, instill common values that span generations of students, and generate pride and enthusiasm” (p. 107).  The Student Affairs professionals need to educate current members, pledges, and alumni governing boards to ensure accountability for the risk management of hazing.   Dr. Peter Lake, director of the Center for Excellence in Higher Education Law and Policy at Stetson University, identifies a solution to hazing may not be in the punishment rendered rather than a focus on justice for the process to abate hazing (Bauer-Wolf, 2018).

An educational model must include current students, club and organization advisors, coaches, and alumni of the institution involved in the various groups.  A focus on ethical and moral leadership development provides the educational approach to impact social change.  Debora Liddell and Diane Cooper in their study of moral development acknowledge that “moral” and “ethical” development are synonymous terms (p. 14).  Linda Trevino and colleagues, in the article Inspiring and Equipping Students to be Ethical Leaders, identify five essential behaviors of an ethical leader from their years of research.  The essential behaviors consist of “integrity, fairness, communicates ethical standards, care and concern for others, and shares power” (p. 6).

The Association of American Colleges and Universities (AACU) established five core commitments to “foster personal and social responsibility on campus”.  The AACU’s 5 core commitments are “striving for excellence; cultivating personal and academic integrity; contributing to a larger community; taking seriously the perspectives of others; and developing moral competence in thought and deed”.  These core commitments provide structure for developing student leaders to serve in roles not positions and take responsibility for the students they lead.  As student leaders, if you lead by example – in giving others respect you in turn will receive the respect of others.  This will allow students, faculty, staff, and alumni to partner in the efforts to abate hazing on their campus.

Stacey Martin, M.Ed.

Doctoral Student, Doctorate of Leadership, Hardin-Simmons University

Dean of Students, Hardin-Simmons University

smartin@hsutx.edu 

TEDTalk on this blog

References

Allen, E. & Madden, M. (2018).  National hazing study: Hazing in view.  Retrieved from:  https://www.stophazing.org/hazing-view/

Bauer-Wolf, J. (2017).  College hazing becoming easier to punish.  Inside Higher Ed, May 24.  Retrieved from:  https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/05/24/college-hazing-becoming-easier-punish.

Liddell, D. & Cooper, D. (2012).  Moral development in higher education.  New Directions for Student Services, 139(Fall), 5-15.

Nuwer, H. (2014).  Stopping hazing in college and high school athletics.  Athletic Business, July.  Retrieved from:  https://www.athleticbusiness.com/athlete-safety/stopping-hazing-in-college-and-high-school-athletics.html.

Schwartz, A. (Summer, 2015).  Inspiring and equipping students to be ethical leaders.  New Directions for Student Leadership, 146, 5-16.  DOI:  10.1002/yd.20131.

Texas Hazing Law (1995), TX State Legislature, Education Code § 37.151, Subchapter F.

Van Jura, M. (2010).  Tradition today: How student affairs professionals can strengthen and preserve campus traditions.  The Vermont Connection, 31, 107-116.

Food Insecurity Among College Students

Posted on by
Reply

Student Alone on Path (2)Hunger.  The mention of the word conjures up images in the collective minds of society.  Everyone has various mental images of hunger, depending upon their perspectives.  Perhaps some think of starving children living in a dusty, desolate Sub-Saharan village, stricken by drought and famine.  Others may think of urban inner-cities, haunted by the heavy atmosphere of poverty, producing a hungry and homeless population.  Thinking of hunger probably does not elicit thoughts of college students strolling through a tree-lined quad or opening the creaky doors of an ivy-walled library, stepping into the distinctive, musty scent of knowledge that can only be produced by books.  Yet, here the nation stands, surrounded by the advancements of the 21st Century, and plunging deeper into a crisis of hunger on college and university campuses.  Hunger?  Hunger seems to be a concept incongruent with mental images of healthy, happy college students.  Unfortunately, that mental image of a carefree college student remains elusive, as hunger shapes reality for too many postsecondary students today.

The United States Department of Agriculture (2017) defines food insecurity as the economic and social condition of limited or uncertain access to adequate food.  Consequently, food insecurity produces the physiological condition of hunger (“USDA Economic Research Service,” 2017).  Across the nation, college students bear food insecurity at rates higher than the general population (Goldrick-Rab, Richardson, Schneider, Hernandez, & Cady, 2018).  When students face what seems like an endless list of expenses, including food, tuition, fees, books, housing, transportation, and possibly childcare and medication, food falls toward the bottom of the list and becomes a luxury more than a necessity.  However, the reality remains that the physiological needs satisfied by food allows students to advance to the self-actualization needs satisfied through higher education (Maslow, 1943).  Helping college students break out of the barriers of physiological needs caused by food insecurity will benefit all of society, not only the directly impacted students and their immediate families.

Since 2008, food insecurity quietly and steadily established a firm grip on college campuses throughout America, with broad and deep effects impacting the marginalized at disproportionately higher rates than the mainstream majority population.  When the tentacles of hunger harm specific demographic populations, the result produces social justice and human rights issues, and not exclusively a higher education issue (Jason, Beasley, & Hunter, 2015).  Students at community colleges report higher rates of food insecurity than students at 4-year colleges and universities.  Food insecurity affects Black, Native American, and Hispanic populations, as well as women (particularly single mothers), students with disabilities, and those who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or queer, at higher rates than the population in general.  First-generation students also report higher rates of food insecurity than students who had at least one parent attend college (Goldrick-Rab et al., 2018).  These marginalized students become even more marginalized, leading them down a lonely road of isolation and shame.

A recent study revealed equal levels of academic effort across all student populations, whether they experience food insecurity or not; however, academic success declines for food insecure students.  Additionally, many food insecure students find themselves unable to purchase required textbooks, skipping classes, dropping classes, earning lower grade point averages (GPAs), and frequently withdrawing from their postsecondary institution altogether (Dubick, Mathews, & Cady, 2016).  In addition to lower academic outcomes, the detrimental effects of food insecurity become apparent in the physical, mental, emotional and social health of students.  Stress, depression, and anxiety occur at rates three times higher among food insecure versus food secure students.  As well, greater alcohol consumption, poor nutrition, fatigue, and difficulty concentrating negatively impact students in and out of the classroom (Dubick et al., 2016).

Campus-level support of food insecure students includes food pantries, food recovery and reuse programs, and donations of unused meal plan points or account balances.  Ten years ago, less than 10 food pantries existed on campuses across the country; by 2016, that number grew to more than 350.  According to the College and University Food Bank Alliance (CUFBA) (2018), over 600 colleges and universities provide on-campus food pantries as of April, 2018 (“Food Pantry Members,” 2018).  Faculty, staff, and students forge partnerships to fortify support services for food insecure students on individual campuses.  Additionally, some colleges and universities adopt financial policies, including short-term, interest-free loans for students anticipating financial aid who have not yet received the payment.  Adjustments in tuition and fee due dates, book loan programs, and social benefits programs provide financial relief for food insecure students (Dubick et al., 2016).  Resources located through this food insecurity site provide additional information.

This critical social, cultural, and educational crisis presents a complex issue requiring complex solutions.  Too many causes of food insecurity produce too many effects for college students across the nation.  Higher education professionals and society cannot only open campus food pantries, pat each other on their communal backs, and then move on.  The issue of hunger and food insecurity requires immediate, long-term, and systemic attention.

To whom much is given, much is required.  Rooted in Scripture and often-quoted, this mandate remains relevant and applicable to solving this social justice issue of food insecurity and campus hunger.  Strong leaders equipped with empathy, compassion, and vision need to step forward to help college students break out of the cycle and side effects of food insecurity.  Strong leaders armed with the skill and insight to tackle this issue must join forces to ensure accessibility for students who desire a greater quality of life through postsecondary education.

Gina Shipley, M.Ed.

Doctoral Student, Doctorate in Leadership Program, Hardin-Simmons University

Instructor, Curriculum & Instruction, Angelo State University

regina.b.shipley@hsutx.edu

TEDTalk on this blog

References

College and University Food Bank Alliance Membership. (2018). Retrieved from https://sites.temple.edu/cufba/members/

Definitions of food security. (2017). Retrieved from https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/food-security-in-the-us/definitions-of-food-security/

Dubick, J., Mathews, B., & Cady, C. (2016). Hunger on campus: The challenge of food insecurity for college students. University of Wisconsin-Madison: Author.

Goldrick-Rab, S., Richardson, J., Schneider, J., Hernandez, A., & Cady, C. (2018). Still hungry and homeless in college. Madison, WI: Wisconsin HOPE Lab.

Jason, L. A., Beasley, C. R., & Hunter, B. A. (2015). Advocacy and social justice. In Community psychology: Foundations for practice (pp. 262-288). San Francisco, CA: SAGE Publications.

Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370-396.

Dual Credit, Bad Credit?

Posted on by
Reply

DualCreditPolicy makers and K-20 educators attempt a range of structural and programmatic solutions for combating the issue of academically underprepared students entering colleges and universities.  Options exist in high schools to increase academic rigor including programs such as Advanced Placement (AP) and International Baccalaureate (IB); however, the focus primarily remains on dual credit (DC) as the primary strategy to address these challenges.

“Dual credit programs offer high school students the option of taking college-level courses that award both college and high school credit at the same time.  Courses range from either academically oriented to career and technical education (CTE)” (Miller, Kosiewicz, Wang, Marwah, Delhommer, & Daugherty, 2017).  Dual credit, also referred to as dual enrollment (DE), program delivery extends through partnerships between high schools, colleges and universities.  Instructional delivery may either reside on the high school campus or the college/university campus. Unlike AP and IB courses, DC students do not take a standardized exam to receive course credit.  College credit hours for dual enrollment remain based on grades and course completion rather than an end of course test. Students taking dual enrollment courses receive credits to fulfill both high school and college graduation requirements (Thomas, Marken, Gray & Lewis, 2013).

Since 2000, according to the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (2011), dual credit in the State of Texas witnesses a 650 percent growth in high school student enrollment.  The growth exists in part as a result of legislative action and a concerted effort among Texas high schools and colleges to offer opportunities to earn college credits prior to students graduating high school (Miller, et al., 2017).  However, stakeholders remain divided on the effectiveness of dual credit programs.  Arguments suggest dual credit courses lack rigor setting students up for failure upon entering college or the workforce. Programmatic variations exist including teacher eligibility, institutional type and content and course quality—particularly dual credit courses offered in a traditional high school setting taught by high school instructors (Tobolowsky, 2016).  To support the State’s strategic plan to reach goals of 60x30TX, programmatic reforms remain necessary.

Dual credit holds a lack of extensive literature and empirical research.  Dual enrollment programs are decentralized by institution or system and one single repository of data does not exist for large scaled, controlled studies (Wyatt, Patterson & Di Giacomo, 2015).  State statute establishes minimum quality standards for the administration of DC courses with substantial freedom and discretion, allowing universities to adopt additional standards of their own to ensure high school students benefit from DC courses (Miller, et al., 2017). Ironically, dual credit, swarmed with legislative attention, action and focus, continues to remain inconsistent, sparking debate.  The College Board’s AP Course Audit, governing the Advanced Placement program, maintains strict standards for ensuring quality instructors and rigorous course content linked to higher education course standards.  Advanced Placement continues to follow added structure and consistency with proven, desirable college outcomes for students (Wyatt, Patterson & Di Giacomo, 2015).  No single governing body exists for dual credit oversight and regulation.

A primary concern from critics of dual credit programs remains a lack of rigor and often an absence of college preparation.  This stems from varying instructional strategies and content delivery between school districts, colleges and universities. High schools located in a city with a university may opt to send dual enrollment students to the campus under the instruction of full-time doctorate faculty. Rural high schools; however, often employee secondary teachers with a master’s degree to adjunct for a local community college in a neighboring town. In other cases, students take on-line dual credit courses, often proctored by a paraprofessional, and the rate of student academic dishonesty escalates. Therefore, inconsistencies in dual credit content and delivery develops.  DC instructors, while held to a syllabus approved by the college, may veer from required course content due to inconsistent monitoring and supervision by the higher education institution.  Often, no on-site monitoring occurs, even though the SACSCOC requires departmental and institutional policies on supervision and evaluation.  No instrument or evaluation tool for dual credit instructors exists.

The delivery of dual credit courses varies and changes over time. According to (Miller, et al., 2017), faculty teaching DC courses remain significantly less likely to hold doctoral degrees and significantly more likely to serve as adjunct professors.  An estimated 41 percent of DC course seats remain taught by a faculty member of a K-12 school, while half of dual credit courses continue instruction on a high school campus with 15 percent of DC classes taught online (Miller, et al., 2017).

“Partnership agreements between higher education institutions and one or more school districts or private secondary schools to deliver DC education are developed independent of government oversight that remain required by state rule to define how they will administer DC instruction and support services” (Miller, et al., 2017, p. 15).  Memorandum of Understanding approval between partnering institutions remains a requirement prior to course delivery. Because the state does not mandate uniformity across dual credit partnership agreements, college and school district collaborations may customize arrangements according to specific needs and circumstances (Miller, et al., 2017).  Dual credit course content lacks standardization; therefore, students taking the same content may not cover similar material (Tobolowsky & Allen, 2016).  Additionally, dual credit curriculum does not offer a standardized measure of knowledge or accountability such as Advanced Placement, International Baccalaureate or the Texas STAAR or End-of-Course Exams in K-12 schools. Advanced Placement establishes a level of rigor and the courses stand identified with a reputation exemplifying excellence.  The quality of dual credit courses remains difficult to measure; however, AP courses, in contrast, stay judged on a more consistent standard—the national exam. Tobolowsky and Allen (2016), posit students who take dual credit coursework in the same subject enter into college classrooms unequally prepared.

How can consistency be regulated with no single entity monitoring and regulating dual credit programs?  With no set standards established or monitored, allowing colleges significant leeway in determining course structures, content delivery and instruction programmatic inconsistencies result. No wonder dual credit draws critics and scrutiny. The states must inspect what they expect; yet, a governing body for dual credit programs remains obsolete, at both the state and federal level.  Has the consideration for a dual credit governing board not remained a consideration? Why?  Improvements cannot occur without set, consistent expectations and accountability. Why do we not inspect what we expect?

Einstein states, “We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used to create them.” Dual credit programs, in theory, remain the bridge to college and career readiness; yet, fall short of reaching the goal—college and career readiness. Legislation, enacted in Texas, defines dual credit, offers funding options, and removes restrictions on the number of dual credit hours high school students may take.  However, nowhere in statute do specific guidelines exist requiring a governing board to oversee consistent dual credit delivery across the state or country. While regulation remains stated, the enforcement and implementation of accountability measures stays lacking.  The goals that led to the rise in popularity of dual credit—access, cost and college completion—will continue to spur growth.  However, the lack of uniform standards complicates dual credit delivery raising concern that dual credit exists as bad credit.

Pam Hailey, M. Ed.

Doctoral Student, Doctorate in Leadership Program, Hardin-Simmons University

Secondary Principal, TLCA Midland

Pam.hailey@tlca-md.com

TEDTalk on blog

References

Miller, T., Kosiewicz, H., Wang, E., Marwah, E., Delhommer, S., & Daugherty, L. (2017).  Dual credit education in Texas:  Interim report. Santa Monica, CA:  RAND Corporation.  Retrieved from www.rand.org.

Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (2011).  Dual credit report.  Austin, TX.

Tobolowsky, B., & Allen, T. (2016).  On the fast track:  Understanding the opportunities and challenges of dual credit.  ASHE Higher Education Report, 42(3), p.7-106.

Wyatt, J., Patterson, B., & Di Giacomo, T. (2015).  A comparison of the college outcomes of AP and dual enrollment students.  The College Board Research Report (2015-3).  Retrieved from www.collegeboard.org.