Letter to the Editor: response to editorial, open letter on Add/Drop schedule

I believe that ending the add/drop period before classes begin may be a good idea.  Comments by faculty member Devorah Feldman and the staff of The ACCent in the paper's most recent issue suggest that this would violate the college's open door policy. 

Of course it doesn't.  We still welcome everyone and relish the diversity.  Other comments suggest that limiting students' ability to add classes after the first day violates students' academic rights.  Of course it doesn't.  An institution has a right—even a responsibility—to establish policies for the greater good of students.  Altering the registration time is no more a violation of students' rights than is a teacher's strict attendance policy.  Some students don't care for it but many of us enforce the policy because we think it works.

The proposal for ending adds/drops before classes begin arises from a larger Student Success Initiative begun last fall to address what are clearly problems at this and other community colleges.  Perhaps the most obvious problems are student retention and pass rates.  Not allowing students to add classes after the semester has begun is not a magic solution.  It may not make a difference in retention and pass rates.  Many of us, however, believe it will.  When the Full-Time Faculty Senate asked faculty for comments on the proposal, the many comments  received were evenly split.

Regardless of the increased availability of online syllabi, handouts, and communication with an instructor, much of importance is done during the first week of a semester.  If all could be done electronically, we wouldn't be meeting.  Information is given, questions are asked, and a tone is established that I consider important in maximizing my students' chance of completing the course.  If teachers do not do anything of importance in the first week, that is to their discredit.  Do late arrivals stay in and pass the class?  Of course.  Do on-time registrants always stay in and pass?  Of course not.  But like many teachers, I find the pattern fairly predictable.  The saying among teachers "last in, first out" largely holds true.

During recent discussions on the issue of moving adds/drops, much discussion has arisen over a group of studies offered for consideration in the debate.  One of the studies found that registering on-time then tweaking one's schedule was most effective.  One study found no difference in performance between students who registered on-time and those who entered classes late.  However, eleven of the thirteen studies showed some degree of positive correlation in the performance of students who registered on-time.  That is, those who registered on-time were more likely to remain in class and to have higher GPA's than students who entered class late.

When discussing these studies, criticism has been levied against them for showing correlation, not causation.  I learned in my first semester as an undergraduate Psychology major that correlation does not equal causation.  But let's be clear about what this means .  In physics and chemistry and medicine, 100% causation might be established.  In disciplines of human behavior—psychology, sociology, education—such a level of causation will not exist.  The reliability of such research depends on reliability established through repetition.  The statistical term is "strength of association."  Can we ever say that registering on-time causes greater success?  No.  But if many studies show such a positive correlation, the strength of association is telling us something.  If we change no other variable except than to limit students' ability to add classes after the semester has begun and if this somehow creates an environment where students are more likely to be retained and make better grades, why would we dismiss the possibility?

The proposal to move adds/drops has never included abolishing necessary changes that happen after classes begin.  Level changes in math, English for Speakers of Other Languages, and developmental courses will continue, as will changes necessitated by documentable college error.  I understand why other students would want the freedom to drop a class and add another during the first week if they realized a class wasn't what they needed/wanted or that a teacher wasn't to their liking.  As the recent commentators have stated, there are many reasons why students might register late for a class.  Some are valid; some are less so.  This new proposal of limiting adds after classes have begun is aimed at helping the greater number of students.  Clearly it is an attempt to change behavior, to force students to be as careful as they can as early as they can in choosing classes.   I think it might work.

The recent staff editorial of The ACCent claims that since "studies prove that black and Hispanic students are not having such an easy time [that] in the name of success, we can barricade these ‘at risk' students so they don't drag down the rest of us."  This is an absurd and offensive analogy.   It's silly to equate a policy that affects everyone with the idea of selecting out certain groups.    I always listen to students.  I usually agree with them.  However, in the same editorial, when the newspaper staff states that changing the add/drop period is a "brutal dismissal of the students who, in the past, have found hope," the writers are engaging in overwrought language serving to elevate tone and undermine reason.  I suggest that we continue to discuss this issue carefully and with level heads.  Finally, the staff "demand[s]" the college "provide student with resources instead of restraints."  This college currently  provides myriad resources that I feel students could take better advantage of.  I might suggest that one resource is designing  processes— perhaps including limiting the ability to add courses after classes have begun—to help maximize the chance of success for a greater number of students.