Degree Debacle: more press coverage

Texas Public Radio: Alamo Colleges Students Voice ‘Generic’ Degree Concerns to Board; Trustees Seem to Hear Their Voice

and

Express-News: Anger erupts at Alamo  Colleges over diploma change

and

Trustee Clint Kingsbery: October 30 post via Facebook

and

The Ranger: Students, public protest against transfer degrees

and

The Ranger, again: Trustees hash it out over transfer degrees

 

It’s troubling that Vice Chancellor Jo-Carol Fabianke is still using the twin spectres of THECB and SACS accreditation as a reason why we’re making this change. Communications from both of those organizations fail to address this issue specifically, instead leaving it up to the District’s “interpretation.” We’re glad to hear Trustee Alderete express concern over this misinformation.

Also troubling is college and District administration’s inability to clearly explain just HOW getting rid of OUR degrees will equal a higher rate of course transfer to other institutions. As one student mentioned at the Board meeting, students can already request and get course substitutions under the current degree system. So why do this at all? Why run an experiment on our students that has caused nothing but ill will and anger and suspicion?

If the Alamo Colleges were an actual corporation, someone would be getting FIRED for this bad rollout. The mismanagement of the degree plan issue has hurt our brand. And it’s the students who suffer and the Board of Trustees who will be held accountable come election time. The Chancellor and PVC go about their merry way with absolutely ZERO accountability.

What will the Board do? What CAN the Board do? We’re sure that they are angry and frustrated, too. We’ll see what happens in the coming weeks and months. Students have found their voice and they won’t shut up about this. Good. Students first. It’s the Alamo Way.

One comment

  1. Another troubling moment was when Fabianke responded to Bustamante, who had asked why the board did not know about this before the change was made. Fabianke replied that, “it was not under the board’s jurisdiction”. However, the board does approve curriculum changes – it’s in board policy!!

    This also runs counter to the EDUC 1300 disaster – when the board charged the chancellor with inserting Covey into the core and even in this year’s charges include this gem: “Continue to explore the integration of the course EDUC 1300 into the Core programming…” So it seems the board has role in curriculum when it’s convenient for the district officials. It is clear that the board has completely failed the public in their monitoring of the chancellor and district. I think we all know he writes his own charges, and his leadership grows more shameful as the weeks, months and years roll on.

What do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s