higher ed

Some Monday Morning Reading

Eduflack Arne Duncan, charter schools, higher ed

This is shaping up to be one helluva week for Eduflack, with lots of organizations trying to figure out their “message” and how it fits into the future of public education in the United States.  Obviously, business before pleasure.  So postings this week, at least the typical Eduflack postings will likely be lighter than normal.

That doesn’t mean I’m not keeping my eye out.  So each day I’ll try to post links to some of those articles that are catching my eye, just the sort of thing that would trigger a response (or at least a deep, rich consideration of one.
The EdSec’s Discretion
Over at Education Week, Alyson Klein has an interesting piece on EdSec Arne Duncan, including a discussion of the discretionary funds he’ll have available to him in the near term.  The EdSec’s discretionary funds have long been one of the best opportunities for true innovation and reform in public education  Glad to see the EdSec is already thinking about what he can do to stimulate new thoughts and bold ideas in our K-12 systems.
Progress
Down in Texas, the University of Texas System named Dr. Francisco Cigarroa as chancellor of the Lone Star State’s higher ed system.  The significance?  Dr. Cigarroa is the first Hispanic to preside over a major university system, according to this AP piece (hat tip to <a href="http://www.ednews.org).
<span style=”font-weight: bold;”>Talking Change
Over at the Center for Education Reform, they’ve launched a new website “Mandate for Change,” looking at a range of issues those seeking to improve public education should consider.  Topics include federal accountability, charter schools, and teacher quality.  Essay authors include NPR’s Juan Williams, National Association of Manufacturers’ John Engler, and former USA Todayer and EWA Prez Richard Whitmire.
Teaching on the Hardwoods
Like him or hate him (and most fall into that latter category), former Indiana and Texas Tech basketball coach Bobby Knight is one terrific coach and an even better teacher.  After a hiatus, he may be heading back to the ranks of college educators, as the University of Georgia looks for a new basketball coach.  It’s always refreshing to see those coaches who prioritize teamwork and the college degree over one’s chances to be a lottery pick.

Turning Economic Lemons Into STEM Lemonade

Eduflack High School, higher ed, PD, STEM, Workforce

Many were greatly surprised yesterday when Microsoft announced it was laying off 5,000 employees across the United States.  Microsoft is one of those companies that we have long viewed as invulnerable.  It was a company on a relatively upward trajectory from the start, weathering the dot-com bomb of 2000, the resurgence of Apple and the Mac, legal issues both home and in the European Union, and even trivial issues like the public rejection of its latest operating system.

So when layoffs were announced yesterday, it was a big statement.  Those who thought the economy had turned the corner and was ready for recovery are now reconsidering their optimism.  While the Microsoft downsizing is likely to have a lasting impact on the technology sector, it provides a real opportunity for public education.  Among those employees soon to depart the software giant are individuals expert in math, science, technology, and engineering, just the sort of content background and training our public schools — particularly our high schools — are in desperate need of.
For decades now, we have bemoaned the national shortage of qualified science and math teachers, particularly in our urban areas and in our secondary schools.  The current emphasis on 21st century skills and STEM education only amplifies the shortage.  In recent years, we’ve even added the need for “real life” experience to the discussion, believing that boosting student interest in math and the sciences is assisted by educators who are both teachers and practitioners.
Late last year, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (yes, the same Bill Gates who founded Microsoft and turned it into the economic giant it became) announced that human capital and strengthening our teacher pool was a priority.  Rightfully so.  Real, lasting education improvement begins with talented, effective teachers.  Without strong math and science teachers in our classrooms — those who understand the content, the pedagogy, and the real-life context — reforms are half-hearted at best.
So why can’t we bring together the Gates Foundation’s vision (and financial commitment) to strengthening and supporting teachers with a new pipeline of knowledgeable STEM practitioners and find a way to get those displaced workers (as well as those from other tech sector companies) out of the boardroom and into the classroom?  Why can’t we use everything we know about pre-service teacher training, necessary pedagogy, and mid-career teacher transitions and build a comprehensive STEM teacher training program that trains tech workers and connects they with communities and school districts in dire need of effective STEM educators?
Such an effort wouldn’t be a first.  Back in 2005, IBM announced it was transitioning a portion of its workforce into K-12 education.  They established relationships with institutions of higher education in key IBM communities to develop mid-career teacher training programs.  They applied the IBM training model to teacher development.  They looked to break new ground in mid-career transition.
Now we have an opportunity for the Gates Foundation, the National Math and Science Initiative, or a host of other organizations to come together and build a better mid-career transition mousetrap.  Yes, we would need to make sure the right workers are entering the program (not everyone is up to the challenge of teaching, and not everyone – no matter how much content knowledge they possess – can teach it).  Yes, we would need to ensure that any training program is research-based and deeply rooted in the pedagogy.  We can’t do drive-by teacher training.  And yes, we know that this doesn’t solve the larger issue of effective math and science teachers in every classroom, particularly those in our at-risk communities.  But it is a start, and a good one.
In STEM programs across the nation, states and school districts are seeking to achieve a number of goals.  First is to boost student interest in the STEM subjects.  Second is to get more students to take STEM classes and pursue STEM degrees.  Third is often how to get those with STEM degrees back into the classroom to teach in those schools where they gained their STEM passions.  These goals take time.  But getting top engineers and video game designers and mathematicians  into the classroom to display their personal passions each and every school day is a good start to building student interest.  With the proper trainings and support, they could become effective STEM teachers equipping a generation of students with the skills and knowledgebase they need to navigate our future challenges and opportunities. 
Now is the time turn some of those economic lemons and turning them into some STEM instruction lemonade.  And the Gates Foundation can do it by first taking care of its own.  Talk about win-win.

Improving College Readiness and Results

Eduflack higher ed, Online Education, Students

In keeping with Eduflack’s ongoing discussions of college readiness, following is a guest post from Holly McCarthy.

Over the years, the importance of a college education has
become more and more recognized by young people of a wide variety of
socioeconomic backgrounds.  With
the current economic situation, the importance of having lasting and pertinent
skills is something that is on the minds of many as they begin to map out their
futures.  Knowing the importance of
a college education is the first step; these young people must be prepared for
college, however, before they go off to school. 

Many entering freshmen are completely unprepared for the
rigors of academic life beyond public schooling.  While the reasons for this can be quite complicated, the
fact of the matter is that college preparation needs to be taught in schools, especially
when students are encouraged to go to college to earn a degree.  Something is being lost along the
way—kids are being told to go, but they are not taught what to do once they
arrive.

Study Skills

One of the biggest problems many students face once they set
foot on campus is a lack of good study skills.  This problem adversely affects many aspects of the college
experience and puts these students at a disadvantage.  In high school, teachers often spend a great deal of time
explaining what will be on tests, handing out review sheets, etc., but spend
little time explaining that this kind of thing won’t be given out by most
college professors.

A good idea for rectifying this situation would be for
students to be gradually weaned off of these study guides and unambiguous study
sessions.  Learning how to figure
out what is going to be important and how to take notes and personally develop
study skills is something that shouldn’t have to be learned by being thrown to
the wolves in college.  Rather, students
should be given opportunities to learn and develop these skills over time in an
environment with fewer consequences and more chances for remediation.

Time Management

Another area where public schools fall far behind is teaching
students how to manage their time wisely. 
We live in a world that values results and productivity very
highly.  Advances in technology
have made many jobs obsolete and the expectations for employees continue to
increase as a result.  Time
management in college is something that can make or break a student’s career if
they are not careful.

Teaching students to take responsibility for projects and
reinforcing the importance of timelines and setting up achievable goals would
truly help students to learn how to effectively manage their time.  In most cases, high school students are
actually taking more courses per semester than they ultimately will in
college.  Showing them how to
effectively manage tasks such as reading large amounts of material, studying on
a schedule, and preparing papers and projects so that they don’t end up being
done at the last minute could mean the difference between success and failure. 

(This post was contributed by Holly McCarthy, who writes on the subject of online schools. It represents Holly’s opinions only, and she invites your feedback at hollymccarthy12@gmail.com.)   

Wahoowah, But What Is “Value?”

Eduflack higher ed, Workforce

In today’s economic climate, there is growing worry about cost.  This is particularly true in higher education, where we have witnessed cost increases that far exceed the explosions seen in other industries (even healthcare).  We tell every student they need a postsecondary education to succeed in the new world economy, but we usually fail to address the cost issue, figuring new loans will simply take care of the problem.  Students are looking for real value and real savings.

Today, USA Today offers up its Best Value Colleges for 2009 under the headline of “Getting the most bang for your college buck.”  
Eduflack”>www.usatoday.com/news/education/2009-01-07-best-value-colleges_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip
Eduflack is incredibly proud his alma mater — the University of Virginia — is the top public institution in the nation.  He was surprised, though, to see eduwife’s Stanford University listed in the top 10 for private institutions.
Why?  A Stanford education doesn’t come cheap.  Four years out at the Farm will run you north of $150K or so these days.  Same is true for most of the institutions on the top 10 privates list, universities such as Harvard, Princeton, Yale, and CalTech.  Even the top private — Swarthmore College — come with a nearly $49,000 a year price tag (while providing an average grant of $30K).  So how does that make it a “best value,” particularly if you are paying sticker price?
Princeton Review’s Ben Zelevansky defines best value as “a list of schools that provide the best balance of a strong education and a reasonable rate of attendance.  The bottom-line cost for families is our concern here.”
He may be right.  But it is hard to swallow that a “best value” college education is pricier a starter house in many of the communities a graduate may soon enter into.  Even at my proud alma mater, I recognize that U.Va. costs more than your average public university.  Quality costs.  Virginia has taken major steps to expand its access and its financial aid — including its AccessUVA program — but it is hardly a great find in the bargain bin.
I recognize that “best value” does not mean the lowest cost, nor is it intended to.  The selection criteria include academics, costs, and financial aid.  Perhaps, though, we also need to look at return on investment to determine “best value.”  How many of these students go on to graduate or professional schools?  How many are gainfully employed within three months of graduation?  How many are employed in the field in which they studied?  How many are giving back to their alma mater — financial or otherwise — demonstrating they value the impact their school had on their lives?
Best Value Colleges for 2009 is a great start, but families across the country need to dig deeper into the data and really understand how their postsecondary dollars are being spent and whether they have a chance of receiving the return they are seeking. Value is ultimately in the eye of the beholder.  More data sharpens that eye.  

Looking Ahead to 2009 Priorities

Eduflack Achievement gap, Arne Duncan, early childhood education, higher ed, IES, NCLB

The holiday season and the end of a year usually triggers one of two behaviors in people.  The first is to be reflective on the last year, taking the time to evaluate our successes and failures.  Over at the Curriculum Matters blog (http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/curriculum/), Kathleen Manzo points out that is exactly what the U.S. Department of Education is doing, with EdSec Spellings and company offering up a swan song of NCLB highlights.  And while I share Manzo’s few that many will quibble with NCLB raising student achievement scores and closing the achievement gap, it is an important list to take a look at.

The second approach, though, is the one taken today by USA Today in its dueling editorials.  Focusing today’s debate on education, the nation’s newspaper offers four “low-cost ways to fix the schools.”  It is a great read, particularly since it is likely RIchard Whitmire’s swan song over at USA Today.  blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2008/12/our-view-on-edu.html#more  
For more than a month now, Eduflack has been pointing out that the new Obama-Duncan education team is not going to have buckets of new education dollars to play with.  They are going to need to re-allocate existing funds, restructure current programs, and ensure that today’s dollars are delivering real return on investment.  Along those lines, what does USA Today propose?
* Renew No Child Left Behind
* Target preschool money toward quality improvements
* Boost high-performing charter schools
* Extend accountability to higher education
It is an interesting wish list.  Senator Kennedy has called for NCLB reauthorization, and incoming EdSec Arne Duncan is on record as a fan of the law.  So it is safe to assume that reauthorization is coming, with some improvements to the existing law.  The reauthorization is likely to be revenue neutral, but it will redeclare our priorities for the coming years.  It is the strongest stick in Duncan’s upcoming rhetorical arsenal.
Preschool builds on a strong tenet of the Obama campaign, with his ongoing call to invest $10 billion in early childhood education.  Yes, the focus should be on quality.  And those quality improvements should be about academic enhancements and instructional building blocks.  If we really want to be bold, the first step should be moving Head Start (and its budget) from HHS over to ED.  Many states have started the universal preK push.  With state budgets now facing devastating cuts, the feds are going to need to fortify the dams on early childhood ed, ensuring that recent gains aren’t erased because of short-term cash crunches.  The long-term effects are just too important.  
And of course higher education needs greater accountability.  Not only should it be accountable to the government (federal and state) and regulatory bodies, but it should be truly accountable to its customers — the students — ensuring they have clear data on both how their tuition dollars are spent and the return on investment for them in the classroom and beyond.
The charter school piece is an interesting one.  We know charters are working in Chicago, and we know there are promising models — such as KIPP and Green Dot.  But if a Republican president and a Republican Congress weren’t able to redouble federal support for charters, do we expect it from a Democratic Congress?  Ideas such as Andy Rotherham’s reconstitution of OII may help move this idea forward incrementally, but charters are going to become a very “interesting” issue in the coming years, replacing vouchers as the line in the sand between reformers and status quoers.  And it is all going to come down to research and which side is the more effective advocate.
I would recommend a few other “low-cost ideas,” particularly those streams of thought that just ensure we are spending current money wisely.  The first is Title II.  This incoming Administration has declared 2009 as the unofficial year of the teacher.  We need to make sure that Title II dollars are going to effective professional development, that it is ongoing and job-embedded.  That PD is tied to classroom instruction and demonstrable student improvement.  That our teachers are getting the tools and knowledgebase they need to both meet growing expectations and truly succeed.  We need to make sure that teacher dollars are getting to actual teachers, and aren’t being used to fund bureaucracies or ineffective programs.
The second is research.  Lost in the last six months is the fate of the Institute for Education Sciences and where the U.S. Department of Education’s R&D arm is headed.  IES has a healthy budget.  It is invested in major projects like WWC that have promise, but need a lot of help.  If anything, IES needs a re-tooling.  It needs to better focus on the end user (decisionmakers and educators) and not worry so much about the research community.  It needs to translate the data so it is put into practice into the classroom.  It needs to inform instruction, and successfully communicate its findings and its recommendations to every public school and every classroom in the United States.  And that can be done under existing structure and existing resources.
Once he arrives at Maryland Avenue, Duncan is going to have to lay out a clear vision of where this EdSec is heading on a host of issues.  NCLB, early childhood education, and charter schools will be chief among them.  Many will look at how this K-12 educator will address issues of postsecondary education.  What will be interesting is what ELSE he focuses on.  What does he make a priority that isn’t on the radar?  Will it be research?  Will it be ELL?  Will it be non-IHE training programs?  Will it be family engagement?  Will it be STEM?  I’m hoping the answer is yes to all those questions, and those answers come with an integrated plan showing how they all tie together and how ED is going to build public and stakeholder support for each now, with a financial ask coming a year from now.  I can dream, can’t I?  It is Christmas time, after all.    

Her Name is Rio …

Eduflack High School, higher ed, STEM, Workforce

In recent weeks, we’ve spent a great deal of time talking about economic stimuli, bailouts, and investing in the future.  We talk about what is necessary to compete in the 21st century workforce, what skills our kids need to acquire to compete, and how we as a nation stack up against other nations.  We look at our major industries, wondering which will thrive and which will still just exist a decade or two from now.

Lost in the urgent needs of addressing the very real economic crises of the past few months are the urgent needs of meeting the workforce demands of the next decade.  Are our schools preparing students for the challenges and opportunities of the 21st century?  Are we offering the skills students need to compete, both locally and globally?  Do students and families even understand that the jobs of today may no longer be around next year, let alone come graduation day?
So in this discussion of stimulus and reconstruction, how do we ensure that our current K-12 systems are re-skilling to meet the needs of our economy?  How do we ensure that public education does not merely operate in a vacuum, and that it is relevant to the to the economic and community needs of our nation.
Over at The Washington Post, Joshua Partlow writes about specific steps taken to equip today’s students, the future workforce, with the skills and knowledgebase they need to succeed.  How business is stepping in to provide technical and career-focused instruction so students can capitalize on the opportunities of tomorrow.  The wrinkle — Partlow is writing about recent developments in Brazil, not in the United States.  The full story can be found at: www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/08/AR2008120803747.html?hpid=topnews   It is a fascinating story, essentially positioning Brazil’s industry in the role of U.S. community college.
As we discuss what our nation is doing to bail out our businesses, shouldn’t we also be talking about what our businesses can do to better assist our K-12 systems?  We tell our kids that they cannot gain meaningful employment without a high school diploma and some form of public education.  Shouldn’t we better engage our local businesses to ensure that high school diploma is relevant and of value in the local economy?  Shouldn’t we better partner with industry to make courses more relevant and to show the pathways from K-12 education to interesting jobs and fascinating careers?  Should we see these public-private partnerships as real partnerships when it comes to goals and instruction, and not just partnerships related to scoreboards and yearbook ads?
For years, Eduflack has taken flack for the belief that our K-12 (and postsecondary) systems bear responsibility for preparing today’s students for tomorrow’s workforce.  The concern I regularly hear is that our schools are not trade schools, they are not training programs.  They are intended, critics say, to provide a broad-based education, a liberal arts education, to get kids thinking and considering.  Once they complete those basics, then students can begin pursuing career paths.  Unfortunately, by then, it is usually too late.  Students lack the foundational courses and knowledge they need to pursue careers.  They lose opportunities to use their high school years to study relevant courses.  And they close off pathways before they even get a few steps down the road.
Actions like those taken by “mining giant” Vale in Brazil demonstrate that others are building a better mousetrap.  We know where our skill gaps are today.  We know where our skill gaps are going to be tomorrow.  Shouldn’t we have business and education working hand-in-hand to fill those gaps now, so we aren’t scrambling at the point of maximum urgency?
One of the reasons I advocate so strongly for STEM (science-tech-engineering-math) education is because STEM begins to answer that question. When we look at states that are doing good work in STEM education — such as Minnesota, Colorado, and Pennsylvania — they succeed because of three key reasons.  First, it is an integrated education effort that includes K-12 and higher education.  Second, it embraces the notion that STEM education is required learning for more than just future rocket scientists and brain surgeons, and that every single student benefits from being STEM literate.  And third, it brings together education and industry, ensuring that the business community sees its role and responsibility in educating a better student and preparing a better workforce.
At the end of the day, economic stimulus is about more than physical infrastructure.  It is about more than the roads and bridges and buildings we’ve been talking about.  Economic stimulus is also about the human infrastructure that serves as the true catalyst and the true engine driving the American economy.  It’s about equipping today’s students with the skills and knowledge they need to win and keep real jobs.  It’s about giving them a reason to take those roads and bridges.  It’s about instruction, skill building, and workforce readiness.  That’s the real hope, that’s the real opportunity, and that’s the real stimulus, both know and for the long term.
  

The True Costs of College

Eduflack higher ed

Years ago, Eduflack attended a Lumina Foundation for Education conference on the cost of college.  Lumina’s Making Opportunity Affordable effort helped throw a spotlight on many of the costs associated with higher education, with effort calling on the education community at large to offer real solutions that could help address the concerns associated with the rising costs of college.


At the time, I was struck by one presentation in particular.  The head of a major public university got up to discuss what he was doing to reduce the cost of college.  His list of ideas was long, but all of them related to how to cut the cost of operating his institution.  He was discussing how best to reduce his overhead expenses, not the sticker price for students.  It was there that it truly struck me.  There was a disconnect between what is and what we hope for when it comes to higher education.

And I say this having been raised as a higher education brat.  My childhood was marked by my father’s rise up the higher education administration ladder, from dean to provost to president at three institutions (one private and two public).  I remember tuition costs and accessibility being an top concern for my father every step of the way, and I assumed that was the case for all college presidents … until listening to that one leader at Lumina’s MOA conference.  Working in higher education myself at the time, I was thumped upside the head that our organization was focused on scalability and ways to lower our own operating costs.  Student costs were an also-ran.

I’m reminded of this this morning, as USA Today offers its dueling opeds on the cost of college.  (http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2008/12/how-to-curb-col.html#more)  USA Today’s editors note that college tuition and fees have increased 439 percent since 1982-84.  Over the same period, healthcare costs increased 251 percent, consumer costs increased 106 percent, and household incomes increased just 147 percent.

Consider that.  College costs are increasing at three times the rate of household incomes.  Regardless of the current economic situation, it is no wonder that families are now gravely concerned about how they can afford to send their kids to college. Before last year, many a family was banking on home equity loans to complete the deal.  Not anymore.  And that $10K tuition the parents of today’s college-age students paid is now running $44K. 

As to be expected, the American Council on Education defends the current situation, attempting to heap praise on institutions of higher learning for instituting hiring freezes, stopping major construction projects, and restricting staff travel.  And, to be expected, they focus much of their attention of efforts to reduce institutional operating expenses. Again, little on the student, more on the institution.  blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2008/12/opposing-view-w.html  

It is not cheap to run a college or university. In most communities, they represent the largest or second largest employer in the region.  Utility costs are rising, as are costs related to recruiting and retaining top faculty.  Those institutions wishing to be ranked by US News and others have to boost fundraising and spending in order to stay competitive among their peer institutions. And then you have some experts who believe the cost of college is not high enough yet.  The demand is still too great.  As long as you are turning away 60 percent of interested customers, the thought process goes, the price point is still too low.  A ridiculous concept, yes, but one many an “expert” hold in explaining the rising costs of college.

So what is an IHE to do?  How do we move the discussion from one of operational budgets to one of cost to consumers?  How do we shift to sticker prices and actual costs to families?  How do we ensure that every students capable of doing postsecondary work can gain access to a college AND afford to attend?

I’m no expert, but this also isn’t my first rodeo.  I know this isn’t about increasing the thresholds for available student loans or making more grants and aid accessible.  This is about reducing operating budgets and passing the savings on the consumer — the student.  This is about maximizing existing resources and doing things a little differently.  This is about operating costs, but it is also about what you do with the savings after the fact.  How?
* Increased competition — Higher education is one of the most regulated industries in the United States.  Between state boards and regional accreditors, it is nearly impossible for new competition to enter the marketplace, even if that new competition is looking to meet unmet needs or offer specific degrees today’s students need. We need to take a closer look to what EdSec Spellings’ higher ed commission recommended when it comes to the accreditation process.  More choices, as long as they are quality choices, are better for the consumer.
* Off-hours operation — Colleges are run on the notion that we still operate in an 8 a.m. to 3 p.m. world.  That leaves many college buildings empty for more than half the day, with lights on and HVAC running.  More attention should be spent on off-hours classes, offering evening and weekend sessions for students, particularly those students working full-time jobs to afford their full-time education.
* Virtual education — Many traditional colleges and universities are now offering virtual education options, in many cases charging more for online programs than they do for bricks-and-mortar learning.  Why?  Virtual options can serve more students at a lower price point. If students are motivated to study virtually, they cost savings should be passed on to them for not accessing the libraries, th
e student health centers, and the athletic facilities.  Virtual ed should be seen as a path to get more kids into college, not purely as a profit center for the institution.
* Faculty — If a student takes four years of classes taught by fully tenured professors or four years of courses offered by TAs, they pay the same tuition. When I was a student, I purposely selected my courses so I was learning from the best professors at the University of Virginia. If you are getting taught by teachers in training (TAs), shouldn’t there be cost savings?  I don’t mean to complicate things by offering a sliding scale tuition based on who is teaching, but it seems like a no-brainer.
* Low-interest programs — Too many institutions offer too many programs with little enrollment. Why?  Tradition.  We’ve always had a classics department or we’ve always taught Sandscrit or we’ve always provided students courses in the early learning styles of Mesopotamian farm animals.  Each of these low-interest programs requires faculty, administrative staff, and overhead costs.  Instead, let’s deliver the programs the people want.
* Remediation — The statistic is often thrown around that more than half of all college freshmen need to take remedial math or English upon entering their postsecondary institution.  Students need to leave high school prepared for college-level work.  It is the responsibility of our K-12 system, and not higher ed, to provide those skills.  The work, and the cost, should be borne by K-12 (and no, we shouldn’t just push it all on the community colleges).

Yes, I realize that most of these are again operational issues.  But these are big operational issues that IHEs across the nation are dealing with (or choosing not to).  Once we address such issues (and many others that I know are out there), we then move to phase two — passing the savings on to the student.  If colleges are making additional money by renting their dorms out to cheerleading camps during the summer, that savings should be passed on to the students renting those rooms during the academic year.  Does it really cost $600 a credit hour to deliver higher education at a private institution, or are we saddling students with the costs of unprofitable athletic programs or unused new facilities?  How much is too much to charge an out-of-state student to attend a public institution — 150 percent of the cost to educate them, 200 percent of the cost?  

At what point do we say we can do better with the resources we have?  At what point do we say it is unreasonable to charge an 18-year-old nearly $50,000 a year for four (or five or six) years to earn a BA?  At what point do we say it is unforgivable to saddle a 22-year-old with hundreds of thousands of dollars in student debt?

As luck would have it, tomorrow, Education Sector is hosting a forum on how colleges are using technology to make college more affordable for students.  www.educationsector.org/events/events_show.htm?doc_id=717088  Perhaps they’ll provide the answers so many are looking for.
Operational costs are important.  But the true cost of college is what the consumer is paying.  If we really expect every student today to go to college, if we demand postsecondary education in order to get a good job and participate in the 21st century workplace, then we have to do something about costs.  And I mean real, out-of-my-wallet costs.  Reducing overall operating expenditures so tuition rates simply increase 5.5 percent this year simply won’t cut it.

The Long View for Superintendents

Eduflack Achievement gap, High School, higher ed, Workforce

What is important to an urban superintendent?  What keeps him or her up at night?  Years ago, Eduflack remembers getting into a discussion with a former boss on such issues.  At the time, I was told superintendents simply don’t care about college-going rates or what happens after the merriment of commencement commences.  Life after isn’t their concern, this boss lectured me, superintendents simply care about keeping the bodies in their schools and seeing them through the 12 years.  Then the work is done.

At the time, I fought the notion.  It seemed awfully cynical (even for a cynic like me) and lacked the sophistication of school district leaders seeking where they fit along the P-20 continuum.  It meant superintendents were focused on the process, and not on the outcomes or the product of their work.  I refused to believe that.
When my father was president of a public institution of higher education in New England, one of his top concerns was making sure his kids graduated ready for the workforce.  He actually issued a guarantee to the local business community, offering to take back any graduate who was found to lack the soft skills a college graduate with a certain major should have.  It seemed novel at the time, and took many a stakeholder aback.  But it was a bold statement.  It said the local college cared about the product of its work, and measured it success, in part, on what happens long after student had taken their final course or paid their final bill.
After today’s Education Trust conference, Eduflack feels validated.  I can see that many a superintendent shares the view of my father (and not that former boss), and are deeply concerned about the success of their graduates AFTER graduation.  District leaders such as Chicago’s Arne Duncan, San Jose Unified’s Don Iglesias, and Montebello’s Janet Tomcello, along with the Michigan Association of Secondary School Principals’ Jim Ballard, all spoke to the need for preparing ALL kids for college and careers.   
It obviously helps that this is also a priority shared by a thick checkbook such as the Gates Foundation.  But it was reassuring to hear these leaders talk about college and career preparation in a meaningful way, recognizing the need for improved rigor and relevance in the classroom, knowing that education is not completed at the end of the 12th grade, and embracing the notion that today’s jobs require a more comprehensive education reflective of the more complex work and life environments we’re all facing.
We ask a great deal of our superintendents.  We want them to get all students proficient as soon as possible.  We ask them to show AYP. We want them to close achievement gaps.  We want problem schools turned around quickly.  And we want 100% high school graduation rates to boot.  Now we expect those diplomas to stand for something, both in terms of college readiness and workforce preparedness.
We’ve all heard the data on college remediation and how more than half of today’s college freshmen (two- and four-year institutions) have to take either remedial English or remedial math.  I’ve done survey after survey and focus group after focus group with business leaders who share the sentiment that today’s high school graduates lack the skill sets to excel in today’s workforce.  Clearly, we are facing a gap here, a gap between our aspirations and our realities.
If leaders like Duncan and Iglesias are serious, maybe it is a time for our major urban districts to offer their own guarantee.  If a Chicago Public Schools graduate lacks the reading or math skills to do college-level learning, CPS will take them back and get them up to speed.  If a recent graduate from San Jose lacks the literacy or problem-solving skills to work in the local factory, San Jose Unified will step in and further equip their grads.  These supes will stand behind their diplomas, and make good on all of them.
Such guarantees may seem gimmicky, but they work.  We see a guarantee, and we assume it is a stronger product.  We believe those who sell it believe in its quality.  Imagine the power of a high school guarantee.  We say the superintendent and his principals all stand behind the value of the education the provided.  Talk about a confidence builder for those looking for college and career preparedness.

Seeking ROI on Undergraduate Education

Eduflack higher ed, Students

It is common to hear that college is about more than classes.  At the end of four (or five, or six) years, successful students will have built relationships with a network that will support them for decades, gained valuable skills in areas like problem-solving and teamwork, figured out the notion of multitasking, and generally had to take responsibility for their own day and the hours within it.

Don’t get me wrong, college classes are important.  But they aren’t the end all-be all of the postsecondary experience.  Personally, I spent four years at the University of Virginia, the top public university in the nation.  I took a lot of interesting and engaging courses, particularly in the fields of government and communications.  But my real college experience came from my internships on Capitol Hill and my tenure at The Cavalier Daily, U.Va.’s independent student newspaper.  As managing editor of The Cavalier Daily, I worked 60-80 hours per week (for no college credit and no pay), managed a staff of nearly 150 volunteers, and put out a daily newspaper (usually 16 pages a day) that boasted an operating budget of nearly $500,000 generated exclusively from advertising revenue.  That was the real education, and The CD provided me writing, management, thinking, and leadership skills that simply could not have been captured elsewhere, at least not for the average 21-year-old.
Today’s USA Today commits an entire page to the National Survey of Student Engagement (http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2008-11-10-nsseonline_what-is-nsse_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip)  and the role it places in improving the quality of higher education.  According to our nation’s paper of record, USA Today and NSSE “aim to provide new tools and information to help college-bound students and their families assess the quality of undergraduate experience at the schools they’re considering.”  Nearly 400 four-year colleges and universities are participating in the experiment.
How are they doing it?  Schools are looking at how they deal with helping students transition into postsecondary education, how they connect with students, and how they provide alternative learning experiences such as community service, study abroad, and internships.
Eduflack’s not sure what USA Today’s long-term goals are with NSSE, but personally, I wish all 4,000 of our postsecondary institutions would sign on and become part of the process.  A 10% sample is a good start, particularly if it is the right 10%.  But the issues and questions posed by NSSE are important for educated and interested families to consider when making postsecondary choices.
For decades now, students have pored over the US News & World Report rankings and books such as the Fiske Guide to Colleges to help make informed choices about college. Princeton Review and others have done a good job of breaking colleges down into interesting subsets, at least showing students the top institutions in key categories.  Parents have kept a watchful eye on things like the top party schools, hoping to steer their kids away from the best places to “enjoy themselves.”  But it is useful to know how all colleges compare, not just the creme of the crop.
When Eduflack was making the college decision, it was between U.Va. and Princeton.  Both schools were equidistant from my high school in West Virginia, so mileage from home wasn’t a factor.  At the end of the day, U.Va. felt right.  There was just something about standing on the Grounds, the history of Thomas Jefferson, and the general feel of Charlottesville that spoke to me.  I got far less of that feeling from the ivy in central New Jersey.
And that was before I knew about the college newspaper and the opportunities it would provide.  That would be before an American Government term paper on healthcare reform led me to an internship on Capitol Hill. That was before I knew the true value and impact of an education from Mr. Jefferson’s University.  That was before I knew much of what a tool like NSSE could have told me. 
If NSSE, in partnership with USA Today, can give today’s high school students just part of that glimpse of college life — that look beyond student-teacher ratios, majors, and percentage of kids who go on to law/grad school — then it can make a significant contribution to guiding the next generation into postsecondary education.  Making a decision about college is hard.  The more information you have, the more educated a decision you can make.  If we want college to be a pathway to life success, we need to equip our student decisionmakers with the full picture of the college experience.  From the cheap seats, NSSE moves us just a little closer to that reality.

The True Cost of Higher Education

Eduflack higher ed, Students

For years now, we have heard how the cost of college has been increasing dramatically.  Higher education costs have risen far higher than virtually every other sector in our economy (aside from healthcare), with increasing easily outpacing raises, cost-of-living adjustments, or savings interest rates for the average family.

Based on the annual college price increases, Eduflack estimated it would cost more than $125,000 a year to send eduson to Stanford University for his undergraduate education (following in his mother’s footsteps).  This, of course, recognizing that in addition to tuition and fees, he may need to buy a book or two, find shelter for his head, and eat the occasional meal.  (It doesn’t account for the costs associated with the extracurriculars, the frats, the girls, and the spring break trips, though.)  Thank goodness I’m planning on edudaughter to head down to daddy’s alma mater at the University of Virginia, her first step to becoming governor of our fair Commonwealth and ultimately the senior senator from the Old Dominion.
In today’s USA Today, Mary Beth Marklein takes a closer look at college costs for the current academic year, a year when virtually every family is worried about where the dollars will come from to afford college this year and next.  Marklein looks at just tuition and fees (just the first of many line items in the cost of college), and finds the average private four-year college now costs $25,143 a year, up 5.9% from last year.  The average public four-year (for in-state students) clocks in at $6,585 a year, up 6.4% from last year.  And the average public two-year is $2402, up 4.7%.  Every number reflects an increase after adjusting for inflation, except for our average community college.
The full story can be found here — <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2008-10-29-college-costs_N.htm
Of”>www.usatoday.com/news/education/2008-10-29-college-costs_N.htm
Of course, USA Today is looking at College Board numbers on sticker prices, released this time every year.  What we need is a closer look on the actual purchase price.  Eduflack has never met an alum who actually paid sticker at Boston University, for instance, knowing that BU offers a Harvard sticker with a sizable markdown for those willing to drive off in a BU education today.
As we’ve noted throughout the week, the common drumbeat in education is that every student needs some form of postsecondary education if they are to succeed in the 21st century economy.  But what is it saying when such an education requires home mortgage-sized debt?  What does it say when, as Marklein notes, that except for the wealthiest of families, family income over the past 30 years has not kept pace with tuition increases?  
As part of his education platform, Obama pledges to make $4,000 a year available for every family to make college possible.  A noble idea, yes, but does it solve the problem?  Some would say it creates a deeper class system, where those who qualify for the federal assistance can only manage to attend their local public institution.  (Not that there is anything wrong with that.)  But it still puts private institutions or out-of-state public institutions far out of reach for far too many families.
When Eduflack has discussed the cost of college in the past, he’s often heard, as ridiculous as it sounds, that the simple fact is that college is still TOO affordable.  The economic model follows that there is great demand for seats at colleges and universities throughout the nation.  As long as applications outnumber enrollments, the price is still too low.  Demand outweighs supply, thus price can and should be increased.
I’m not going to redebate what a silly notion that is.  Yes, there will always be people who will pay $50,000 a year this year to go to Harvard, or $125,000 a year in 2024 to attend Stanford.  But if our goal is universal postsecondary education, we need to get our hands around costs and affordability.  It isn’t an issue of making college cheaper, it is an issue of putting college costs on par with the earnings of an average family and what is reasonable when it comes to family contributions, scholarships, loans, and work study.  Its an issue of colleges making cost savings that get passed on to the actual student, instead of simply getting absorbed by the administrative infrastructure.  It is about impacting the bottom line for the customer, and not for the seller.
And all of this is an issue of understanding where higher education dollars are going.  How is that $25K a year at the average private college being spent, particularly if most undergraduate courses are being taught by graduate assistants?  How many tuition dollars are going to support non-academic issues, such as athletics?  And what are the benefits of top publics, like my alma mater U.Va., are making due as a public institution receiving less than 8% of funding from the state government they were constructed to serve?
If we truly believe that every student needs postsecondary education to succeed, we need to provide them with multiple clear paths to high-quality postsecondary education.  And those paths require real choices and real options.  Is it too bold to say that every student, if they work hard, meet the requirements, and gain admission should be able to attend the college of their choice?  Is it too bold to ask that students — the true customers of higher education — fully understand the return on their investment?  I think not.