Creating a New Vision for the Future:
A Report from the Blue
Ribbon Commission
February
1, 2006
Introduction
Leaders
representing the major professional organizations involved with developmental
education and learning assistance were invited to conduct a strategic analysis
of the field and to reflect upon these organizations in particular. These
leaders are members of an ad hoc task force called the Blue Ribbon Commission (BRC). They were appointed by the
professional organizations that are members of the American Council of
Developmental Education Associations (ACDEA). The ACDEA charged the BRC with
conducting a strategic analysis of the profession and to report their findings
back for guidance regarding potential planning decisions by the ACDEA member organizations.
This report is intended as a catalyst for conversation and reflection at this
crucial time.
BRC Delegates
The BRC delegates
were appointed by one of the participating associations or organizations that
are members of the American Council of Developmental Education Associations (Association for the Tutoring Profession,
College
David Arendale (BRC Chair), Assistant Professor,
Hunter Boylan, Director and Professor, National
Center for Developmental Education, Reich College of Education, Appalachian
State University, Boone, NC
Nancy Bornstein (BRC Vice Chair), Director,
Instructional Services,
Kathy Carpenter, Emeriti,
Michael Chambers, Director, Office of Multicultural
Affairs,
Sandra Drewes, Resource Coordinator and
Coordinator of the Kellogg Institute, National Center for Developmental
Education, Appalachian State University, Boone, NC
Johanna
Dvorak (BRC Secretary), Director of
Educational Support Services, Tutoring and
Jackie
Harris, Learning Center Study Strategies &
Writing Coordinator, Ball State University, Muncie, IN
Sherry
Lusk, English Instructor,
Jane McGrath, Emeriti,
Vashti Muse, Reading Instructor,
Beth Nikopoulos, Director, Center for Independent
Study, Instructional Support, and Outreach Services,
Jan Norton, Director, Center for Academic
Resources,
Laura Symons, Coordinator,
Jim Valkenberg, Director, Tutoring/Learning
Center,
Lynell
Williams,
Coordinator,
Tutoring & Learning Center.
The BRC has a website where additional information is
available. Reports such as this one are available there for the general public.
Also, there is a public discussion board for you to express your thoughts about
the issues raised in the report. For details, consult http://www.blueribboncommission.org
Section One
Overview of the Blue Ribbon Commission
Organizations
Represented on the BRC:
Association
for the Tutoring Profession, College Reading and Learning Association, National
Association for Developmental Education, National Center for Developmental
Education, National College Learning Center Association, and National Tutoring Association.
Background of
the BRC:
The
Blue Ribbon Commission conducted telephone and face-to-face meetings beginning
in 2004 to prepare this report. The participating BRC members contributed
strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) for this strategic
review. This report began to take shape at the BRC meeting in
Overview of
the SWOT Report:
To
generate information and analysis of the field of developmental education and learning
assistance and the major organizations that represent the field, the SWOT
organizational strategy was used. SWOT is a common strategic planning process
that focuses on examining an organization’s strengths, weaknesses,
opportunities, and threats. First, a global analysis relating to the current
status of the developmental education and learning assistance field was
conducted regarding strengths and weaknesses (section two of this report). Then, the analysis was focused more
narrowly on the major professional associations that represent the field (sections three, four, and five of this
report). In this stage, the analysis was extended to the strengths,
weaknesses, opportunities and threats confronting these major organizations
that are represented on the Blue Ribbon Commission. The analysis did not seek
to identify the differences among the organizations, but rather the collective
impact of each regarding the four elements of the SWOT analysis. An executive
summary of both discussions is presented in this report.
The
Blue Ribbon Commission acknowledges the collective achievements of the
professionals in the field and of the related organizations. It opens a door to
the work ahead. This BRC report reflects not only the immense vitality of the
profession but also the immense commitment it takes to keep the profession
moving forward toward greater excellence and distinction. This report is
submitted with deep respect for all involved and with the best of intentions to
further the common good and serve as a catalyst for discussion by individuals
and leaders of the profession.
Section Two
Summary of Strengths and Weaknesses in the Field
The
field of academic learning support is rich in strengths. It is an area which provides
access for diverse student populations. Increased academic achievement and
student persistence rates are improved through learning assistance programs. The
field contains quality-credentialed professionals who are altruistic, hard-working,
student-centered, visionary, flexible, passionate, and dedicated. As a result,
there is a documented history of higher student academic success, higher degree
completion, higher beginning salaries, increased access to higher-level employment
opportunities, and increased quality of life. Within the field, the personnel
have professional development options in the forms of conferences, training
workshops, research, publications, organizations, networking, and access to
pre-existing knowledge in other fields. Personnel and programs are often recognized
by state higher education officials, legislators, and the press. Finally, the
field is collaborative and flexible with initiatives that extend from within
the university setting to P-12 and into the workforce.
There
are also weaknesses in the field of learning support. Funding is a common
problem with little access to grants or limited soft money funding. Negative
perceptions exist of the field. Learning support professionals often lack
prestige, are marginalized, and are too-often relegated to working part-time. The
terminology connected to the field is also frequently perceived negatively. Along
these lines, the learning assistance professionals do not effectively advocate
for programs on campus or with legislators. There is also limited access to relevant
graduate programs, resources, and sabbaticals. There is generally not support
for conducting research in this area or good use of the research that exists. Many
people are not trained to conduct rigorous program evaluation or research
studies; they find themselves unsure about how to measure success.
Additionally, they frequently have additional time demands with heavy teaching
loads.
The following
strengths of the field were identified:
The following
weaknesses of the field were identified:
Section Three
Summary of Strengths and Weaknesses of the Organizations
Taken
together, the organizations present a picture of a constellation which is
greater than the sum of the stars. The groups are unique but have overlapping
components. As a whole, they offer members services in the areas of
recognition, professional development, networking, publications, forums for
collaboration/exchange, conferences, interest groups, and websites. Within the
organizations there is a focus on professionalism through advancing standards
and seeking certifications. The organizations are well organized with governing
boards, constitutions, and bylaws based upon an ethical foundation. Scholarship
has grown over time through the research and publications generated. A number
of centers and organizations such as the
As
a weakness, the demographic picture of the personnel within the organizations
is largely aging, mostly white females. Few younger people are becoming members
of the professional associations. Many individuals experience duplication among
the associations that results in a hardship regarding time, money, and loyalty
being split. At present, only a small number of individuals are involved in the
organizations compared to the potentially large number of professionals in the
field who could be active members.
This
concern leads into a broader and more significant weakness of the present
structure of organizations. The organizations often duplicate activities and
actions including conference topics, organization services. and leadership
positions. As a result, competition is created among the organizations. The
danger of this competition is that the members suffer with expenses relating to
duplication of membership, conflicting conferences (manifesting in more expense or time away from the job), and
confusing/overlapping certifications. All in all, there is a mixed image that
is presented to the members and to related political entities. The limited
resources within the organizations and the learning assistance budgets at
universities are stretched too thin with the number of current organizations. It
impacts the leadership, membership, expertise, scholarship, and political voice
of the organization. Not only are the organizations’ services stretched too
far, they are not comprehensive enough. The organizations could provide
different levels of professional development for members at different stages
within the field. There could be more of an organizational focus toward
accessing services via the internet and through technology and drawing adjuncts
into the foal would be advantageous. Promoting a focus on evaluation/research
and professional development would be healthy steps to encourage members to
take. In summary, the current arrangement of organizations lacks the proactive approach
that is critical for meeting the needs of the membership, the changing cultural
climate at colleges and universities, the exploding technological trends in the
society, and projecting a unifying, powerful political stand.
The following
strengths of the organizations were identified:
The following
weaknesses of the organizations were identified:
Section Four
Threats to the Organizations
The
external threats to the organizations are partly an outgrowth of the weaknesses
described earlier. There is a concern that the organizations either develop a
“conquering” attitude, or “take my ball and going home” attitude. Either would
further fragment the field and/or encourage formation of new, additional
organizations. The membership base of the organizations are at risk because of an
increasing number of retirements and members being pulled in too many
directions at work and within their professional organizations to maintain
separate memberships in all of them. Within the organizations there is the
concern of a lack of continuity of action during which community knowledge is
lost and opportunities are missed. On the national level, many grants formerly
available to support learning assistance projects have been eliminated or
curtailed. At the state level there is a smaller percentage of money budgeted for
higher education. On the institutional level, there is frequently an identity
crisis as to whether learning support services should be housed in Student or
Academic Affairs. Some federal/state laws limit or prohibit developmental
education courses. This reflects a type of counterproductive elitism where
public four-year colleges lose developmental education or learning assistance
program support. There is also confusion about the terminology relating to the
services of learning support and developmental education. Certainly, not all of
the threats are within the control of the organizations, but they do impact the
organizations and members. Under the current structure, the organizations’
hands are tied to present a united, powerful front to the threats that face
them. Perhaps one of the greatest threats is the fear of change (or fear of the
unknown) which is expressed in many ways by members and leaders of the
professional organizations.
The following
external threats to the organizations were identified:
Section Five
Opportunities
The
organizations that represent the field will need to make difficult choices to
respond to the challenging environment within postsecondary education. There
are numerous opportunities for the organizations to pursue to improve service
to the field, its members, and the entire education community. Some of these
recommendations would require minimal effort through closer coordination of
activities with the other organizations. Others would require more effort since
they require equal collaborative efforts. The most challenging category of
opportunities would require creation of a new professional organization. The
recommendations generated through this SWOT report are placed in these three
categories.
1.
Increased coordination among organizations:
2. Increased collaboration
among organizations:
3. Vision to create a new professional organization:
Create
a new organization with an expanded vision and mission to serve students and
educators. This approach addresses many of the current weaknesses and threats
and provides the best opportunity for future service. The intent would be to build
a new organization, not merely a merger. Rather than just consolidating the
current membership spread among the existing organizations, the intent would be
to become more inclusive and hence attract many more members to this new organization.
Rather than dividing leadership, resources, and scholarship among the
organizations, all would be centralized within one. This synergy of resources
would be a powerful engine for expanded service to current and future members. It
would be more cost efficient to the organization members since they can avoid
the need to join multiple organizations and travel to the various national
conferences or competing state chapter events. This approach would make
available to all the unique talents and resources that have previously been
distributed among the organizations. There would be a consistent approach to
standards and certifications. Having one voice would increase the clarity of
the field’s position on critical issues with policymakers. We would join most
fields in higher education by having one predominant organization that provides
a wide suite of services to members.
This report does not attempt to identify a structure for
such a new organization. There are a number of examples within the higher
education community (e.g., American
Psychological Association, American Education Research Association). In
these large organizations, they have carefully designed themselves to serve the
needs of a diverse membership. For example, these organizations (APA, AERA) have
major operating divisions based on the occupational and professional interests
of the members. The divisions have considerable autonomy regarding conference
program strands, approval of concurrent presentations, election of officers by
its division members, publication of professional journals and newsletters, development
of services to meet specialized needs, creation of special interest networks,
etc. These organizations have found a way to create an environment where
individuals do not feel lost, but rather find a comfortable home that meets
their specific needs within a larger umbrella structure.
Conclusion
Many
opportunities have been presented to coordinate, collaborate, and to create new
activities, services, and structures to better meet the needs of current and
potential members. Rather than attempting to evaluate the merits of each of
these three avenues in this report, the goal is foster an informed conversation
about the future. The choices made by the organizations may include a
combination of activities among these three categories. The critical next step
is for a wider conversation among members of the organizations to take place
concerning the future of the profession.
The BRC has a website where additional information is available. Reports such as this one are available there for the general public. Also, there is a public discussion board for you to express your thoughts about the issues raised in the report. For details, consult http://www.blueribboncommission.org