higher ed

McCain v. Obama: The Thrilla for the Schoolhouse

Eduflack charter schools, early childhood education, ELL, higher ed, John McCain, national standards, NCLB, Obama, Online Education, Presidential campaign, STEM, vouchers

Over the past two days, Eduflack has taken a close look at the educational platforms offered up by the two presidential campaigns.  Again, the ground rules were simple.  We looked at the campaigns’ plans as identified, laid out, and described on both candidates’ official websites.  No cheating from the speeches made by Lisa Keegan or Jon Schnur or other surrogates.  No interpreting what a few throw-away lines from the conventions meant.  Not even a few glimpses into both senators’ voting records in the congress these past four years (the time they were together).  No, we are here to measure vetted, official plan against vetted official plan.

The 10,000-Foot View
Just like the two campaigns, the two education platforms couldn’t be more different, particularly in terms of their rhetoric and the framing of the issues.  Yes, they both focused on the issues of early ed, K-12, and higher education.  But that’s a given.  Beyond that, their foci are quite different.  McCain’s plan is a running mantra of accountability and choice.  Obama’s is one of programs, resources, and opportunities.  McCain’s takeaway is one of improvement, where Obama is focused on the problems.  Interestingly, McCain seems more focused on change, while Obama seems keyed in on conserving what we already have in place.
The Buzz Words
Eduflack wouldn’t be doing his job if he didn’t focus on the words being used by the candidates and the power behind the rhetoric.  So let’s take a look at the hot words lists for each candidate:
* McCain — Standards, accountability, quality, empower, excellence, parents, effectiveness, choice
* Obama — High quality, opportunity, teachers, programs, support, reward
Areas of Agreement
Both campaigns recognize the need for a strong early childhood education program and both want to improve and simplify the financial aid process for those going to college.  Both recognize that NCLB needs work.  Obama seeks to improve and better fund it, McCain wants to build on its lessons.  Both support charter schools, and both want greater accountability for these school choice options.
Issues of Importance
Obama and McCain clearly come to the table with a different view of the federal role in education.  Again, Obama’s platform focuses on strengthening and improving funding for a number of existing federal programs, while adding funding and support for more efforts.  McCain is focused on innovation and local empowerment, almost re-embracing the old-school GOP role of locally controlled education.
What issues stand out for the two candidates?
* McCain — School-based decisionmaking, parental involvement, school choice, alternative certification, merit pay, virtual learning, higher standards, greater accountability
* Obama — Head Start and Early Head Start, math/science education, dropout prevention, afterschool programs, ELL, teacher recruitment and retention (and merit pay, albeit to a lesser degree than we hear on the stump), and college opportunities   
Again, McCain is talking ideas, Obama is speaking programs. It is an important distinction, particularly when we don’t know who will be calling the policy shots from either the Domestic Policy Council or the EdSec’s office.  So the devil is in the details.
Areas of Disagreement
It’s funny, but these are less areas of disagreement than they are issues of priority.  McCain and Obama simply aren’t focusing on many of the same issues.  Their degrees of importance really define the differences.  
On early childhood education, McCain is focused on Centers for Excellence, improving Head Start on a state-by-state basis.  He also emphasizes the need for standards and quality for our youngest learners. Obama believes early education is about getting as many kids as possible into programs.  Obama focuses on quadrupling the funding for Early Head Start, a program that McCain doesn’t even mention.
On K-12, McCain focuses on options, choice (charters and vouchers), and doing what it takes to boost student achievement (particularly principal empowerment).  Obama focuses on the programs that make our schools run — math/science, dropout prevention, afterschool, and college credits.   Obama also mentions charter schools, but his focus is on closing those that are low performing.
On teachers, the biggest difference is prominence.  Obama provides teachers with their own policy category; McCain embeds them in his K-12 platform.  For Obama, it is all about recruiting, training, retaining, and rewarding. For McCain, it is an issue of alternative certification (which Obama never mentions), incentive pay, and professional development.
On higher education, Obama wants new tax breaks, while McCain wants more research and simplified tax benefits.  McCain also emphasizes the need for information, particularly to parents (while Obama seems to avoid parents all together in his education platform).  Both want to fix the “broken” system of student lending, though.
Funding
By focusing so heavily on programs, Obama essentially calls for increased federal spending for education.  He pledges sizable funding increases for Early Head Start, NCLB, the Federal Charter School Program, dropout prevention, 21st Century Learning Centers, GEAR UP, TRIO, and Upward Bound.  He would also create a number of new federal initiatives, including Early Learning Challenge Grants, Make College a Reality, Teacher Service Scholarships, and the American Opportunity Tax Credit.  In today’s economic climate, this is a bold statement.  Paying for these programs either means eliminating current programs that don’t work (see Mike Petrilli’s suggestions at www.edexcellence.net/flypaper for a good start) or it means increasing the annual appropriation for the U.S. Department of Education.  Based on current politics, I’d say the latter is a near impossibility.
On the McCain side, the Republican nominee focuses on some new programs as well — including Centers for Excellence for Head Start, a grant program for online education opportunities, and Digital Passport Scholarships.  He also calls for funding for teacher merit pay, the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program, and increased monies for Enhancing Education Through Technology.  Still a nice Christmas list, but far more affordable than his Democratic counterpart.
What’s Missing
You know me, I always like to dwell on the negative.  So I immediately jump to the issues that didn’t make the cut in developing the platform.  Neither candidate speaks to the idea of national education standards.  There is almost no discussion of student testing and the measurement of student performance.  Data and research-based practice and decisionmaking can’t be found here.  And while Obama mentions math and science, neither candidate focuses on STEM education, what Eduflack sees as a key to truly linking education, the economy, and our national strength.
Added to the list, McCain avoids ELL (strange for a senator from Arizona), high school dropouts, afterschool, and t
eacher education in general.  Obama avoids discussions of reading/literacy, alternative certification, online learning, and parental involvement.
So Now What?
Eduflack is not going to be so audacious as to make an endorsement of a presidential candidate based on his education platform.  (Those who know me well know where I stand.  And at the end of the day, my opinion is going to be a fairly uncommon one.  Having worked on the Hill for Democratic stalwarts like Robert Byrd and Bill Bradley and then spending so much time advocating for NCLB, Reading First, and accountability, there are few in the Eduflack mold.)  And who cares who I pick?  This above breakdown is to help others take their education priorities and see which candidate better addresses them in the official platform.
If these past 18 months are any indication, education is not a priority for either candidate.  It isn’t what they are out there stumping on, and it is not the red meat the voters want to hear or seem concerned about.  And anyone who has been in this town for more than a few weeks knows that a policy paper is barely worth the paper on which it is printed.
What this does, though, is it makes clear to Eduflack where the priorities are and what emphasis we should see, education wise, should candidate M or candidate O take the oath on a cold January day.  What does Eduflack see?
A McCain Department of Education is one of accountability, standards, and innovation.  Data-driven decisionmaking.  School choice opportunities.  A heavy emphasis on the role of technology, particularly in terms of online learning.  McCain also sees his ultimate customer as the parent, giving them a seat at the table in charting their child’s educational path.
No surprise, then, when we see some of the names on the “finalist” list for McCain EdSec — Lisa Keegan, New Orleans Supe Paul Vallas, and Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty at the top.  (I know some add former Massachusetts Gov. Jane Swift to the short list, but I fail to see how someone who called for the abolition of the U.S. Department of Education a decade ago is really the choice to head that same department today).   All steady, experienced hands to steer the ship.
An Obama Department of Education, though, would have a much different feel.  It almost seems more like a foundation, with a great number of programs running to achieve a common goal.  An Obama ED is one of teacher education, universal preK, increased supports, and improved paths to postsecondary education.  Obama’s ultimate customer — the teacher, without whom most reforms will fail before the get off the ground.
And the tea leaves on an Obama EdSec?  We have the usual suspects, the programmatic heads such as former NC Gov. Jim Hunt.  But we also have out-of-the-box names like New Leaders for New Schools founder Jon Schnur.  The future direction of Obama ed may very well hinge on the leadership qualities he seeks from an EdSec. 
There you have it, the education presidential campaign gospel according to Eduflack.  Let the reflections, debates, and attacks begin.
  

Exceeding Our Parents’ Expectations

Eduflack High School, higher ed

For generations now, we’ve heard that the goal of education (and life) is to do better than our parents.  Families moved from high school dropout to high school graduate to first generation college going.  Families shifted from blue collar to white collar.  Each step along the way, parents wanted to see their kids do better, to know their children would have it a little easier raising their family, paying their mortgage, and generally getting on with life.

In the Eduflack family, for instance, my maternal grandfather was a high school dropout.  He joined the Army, went overseas, and learned how to drive a truck.  He returned to the United States five or six years later with a wife and two small children (including Edumother).  He joined the Teamsters, became a professional short-haul driver (and then supervisor).  He spent his entire career on the loading docks, raising a family of five children, paying his mortgage, and living his version of the American dream.  After retirement, he bought a small plot of land in the middle of nowhere Virginia, moving to the solitude he sought most of his life.
His first daughter, Edumother, took a different path.  She graduated high school.  After high school, she worked three jobs, one of which was as a secretary at Rutgers University.  Why?  So she could take one free college course each semester.  She eventually went on to earn her bachelor’s degree.  Then a teaching certificate.  Then a master’s degree.  She spent most of her career teaching 10th grade English, and while she’d never say it, she is a terrific teacher.  She is also the only member of her family who went on to earn a postsecondary education.  No matter how you measure it, she did manage to do better than her father’s generation.
Which gets us to the point of this little discussion.  This week, a new American Council on Education study reports that today’s younger generation of adults have less education than their parents’ generation.  The numbers are particularly bad with blacks and Hispanics (whites and Asians actually have more education, helping close the gap for the overall average).  Men, in general, are also less educated than their parents.
The Greenville News has the full story, courtesy of Ed Trust and its Equity Express — www.greenvilleonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081009/NEWS04/810090316&template=printart.  
Why is this so important?  We spend so much time talking about the ability to compete in the 21st century economy.  We talk about education as the great equalizer.  We discuss how a high school diploma is no longer sufficient for career success.  We promote the notion that some form of postsecondary education is necessary for all, regardless of their career plans.  Yet the numbers show not everyone is listening.
The message is getting lost. Everyone needs postsecondary education, yet in black and Hispanic communities, kids aren’t enrolling.  Even if their parents have a college degree, they aren’t necessarily choosing the college option.  And for those who enroll, we continue to see huge postsecondary non-completion rates, particularly with the black and Hispanic communities.  And more men are no longer seeing the value of a college degree.
Many groups — Jobs for the Future chief among them — have invested significant time and effort encouraging college-going among underserved populations and boosting college-going rates in the black and Hispanic communities.  Typically, this means convincing a young student that they have what it takes to be the first in their family to go to college.  But if the ACE data is any indication, we have a much larger issue to deal with.
This all boils down to an economic issue, and the past month doesn’t help much.  Many go on to college because they see it as a necessary card to hold to get a good job, pay that mortgage, and raise that family.  We look at the economic news, and many a high school student can sit there wondering if there are good jobs, if anyone can actually afford to pay for a mortgage (if they can secure one at all), and if the hard work is worth it at all.  The challenges are immense.
So what comes next?  It is clear we need to promote the value of postsecondary education for all.  All students benefit from college, regardless of their potential career path or their current socioeconomic status.  All jobs require postsecondary skills, particularly the math, science, and problem-solving skills one gains.  And every young person should still hold out hope that they can do as well, or a little better, than their parents.
I’d like to believe my mother gave me opportunities she never received, and as a result, I have measured up to the expectations my parents had for me.  Personally, I expect my two little ones are going to far exceed anything and everything I ever accomplish, and will be true leaders in their communities and their careers.  I’d also like to believe that ACE is going to take the data it has made available, and invest in a public education campaign to reverse the trend it has uncovered.  I never thought I’d say it, but we at least need to aspire to the status quo, with today’s generation at least reaching the educational levels of their parents.     

The Measure of College Admissions

Eduflack ACT, College Board, High School, higher ed, national standards

Down here in Eduflack’s temporary offices in Central America (long story, but the good news is that it looks like baby Eduflackette, who turned one on Saturday, should be coming home to the DC area for good before the end of the year), my eye was caught by a newsbrief in the NYTimes Digest (even I’m not willing to pay $8 for the full NYT down here) about the latest commission report on college admissions.

Headed By Harvard University Admissions Dean William Fitzsimmons, the latest report recommends that colleges and universities reduce their dependence on SAT and ACT scores when it comes to admitting new students.  Instead, the commission is recommending specific admission exams more closely tied to high school curriculum and student achievement.
For years now, we have seen leading national colleges and universities back off of SAT and ACT scores as requirements for admission.  Researchers have claimed that high school grades, and not standardized admission scores, are the true measure of student success in the postsecondary classroom.  And still more see the tests — particularly the SAT — as yet another example of the high stakes testing that has permeated P-16 education today.
At the very heart of Fitzsimmons’ report, though, I can’t help but think we are simply rearranging some of the deck chairs for postsecondary admittance.  After all, how different do we expect an “admissions exam” to be from the SAT or ACT.  All will serve as standardized tests.  All will measure students on a common level of English, math (and hopefully science and social studies, and maybe even foreign language) abilities.  All will be used to determine the cutoff line, knowing that a score of X gets you in, a score of Y puts you on the border line, and a score of Z puts you in the also rans.
The real issue is how one goes about constructing the admission exam.  By early reports, the Fitzsimmons commission is proposing an admissions exam based on high school curriculum.  A noble idea, yes.  But is it worth the paper it would be printed on (or the computer it would be coded on?)  Can national college admissions exams really be worth anything until we have national standards on which high school curriculum is based?
The answer, as we all know, is of course not.  College entry exams are intended to demonstrate that entering students have the skills and abilities to do basic postsecondary education work.  At a time when nearly half of all college-going students are forced to take remedial reading or math courses, such a determination has never been more important.  Are our high schools turning out students capable of college-level work?  Are our kids ready for postsecondary education?  And if not, what is it our secondary schools should be doing to ensure they are meeting their responsibilities in the P-16 education continuum?
It all brings us back to the simple concept of national education standards.  A rising senior B student in Alabama should have the same skills, abilities, and access to information as a B student in Connecticut, or one in Wisconsin, or one in Oregon or Nevada.  Algebra II should mean the same thing, no matter what state or what school district is taking it.  And a high school diploma should come with a guarantee of a basic knowledge and ability in English, math, and science.  As a nation, we should have common goals.  As a national education system, we should have common expectations from all of our students, regardless of location or socioeconomic status.
Yes, our goal should be getting a greater number of diverse students into postsecondary education.  We need to increase the number of first-generation students entering the halls of higher education.  We need to promote the notion that postsecondary education is a requirement for success in today’s ever-evolving economy.
A college admissions test simply doesn’t get us there, and in today’s environment, too many colleges may be required to develop dozens of such tests to reflect the vast differences in standards and performances across our 50 states.  If college admissions deans really want to make a difference, they should be out there advocating for national K-12 standards.  They should be demanding that every applicant be measured on the same scale.  They should require that a high school education — rural, suburban, or urban; northeast, south, midwest, or southwest — provides the same levels of skill, preparation, and knowledge.  They should require national standards.

“Those Who Do Not Learn from the Past …”

Eduflack Gates Foundation, higher ed, NAEP, PR, STEM

We’ve all heard George Santayana’s famous quote (often attributed to others), that “those who do not learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.”  It is a poignant statement on the importance of understanding what has happened in the past, so we can learn and grow from it.

Personally, Eduflack prefers the words of baseball philosopher king Yogi Berra, who eloquently said that if we don’t know where we are going, we will never know if we get there.  Both are applicable to life, and both are certainly applicable to education reform.  In an our current era of “change,” we are all looking to do something different with the schools.  But for those who have been around the block a time or two, they are seeing reforms that are simply retreads of ideas past.  We put a new wrapping on them or give them a new name, but they are the same failed ideas, with no indication that we have learned from their participation in that first rodeo.
What does it all mean?  For the most part, it demonstrates that we have little sense for our current standing or what it has taken to get us there.  We still believe we have the best higher education system in the world, even though our college graduation rate has slipped from first place to 15th in 10 years.  We still believe our K-12 system has no match, even as schools in India and China manage to turn out more and more students to take our jobs.  And we still embrace an educational model that was developed nearly a century ago, a model built on the notion that 1/3 in college, 1/3 high school grad, and 1/3 dropout is acceptable, and the three Rs remain the king.
Put simply, we are getting by on our reputations, not on our current actions.  We often hear carbuyers talk about their desire to buy a Volvo because of its unmatched safety record.  Let’s forget, for a moment, that the safety record in question is now a few decades old and not applicable to the current models.  In education, we sell our superiority based on an outdated model and outdated comparisons, believing that tinkering around the edges today will make us stronger, and that no one can match what we really have to offer, because they couldn’t three decades ago.
Exams like NAEP, TIMSS, and PISA obviously tell us otherwise.  The growing national push for STEM (science-technology-engineering-math) tells us otherwise too.  But how do we really learn from our educational past, in a way that lets us strengthen our educational future?
On Monday, PBS will debut its “Where We Stand: America’s Schools in the 21st Century” program.  Hosted by The NewsHour’s Judy Woodruff, this program was developed to provide “an historic assessment of U.S. Schools in where we stand.”  Premiering at 10 p.m. on Monday, September 15, the program will tell the stories of a number of individuals and communities affected by the current state of public education, focusing on issues such as teaching foreign languages (like Mandarin classes in Ohio), addressing high-poverty, low-performance issues, and using STEM education programs to lift all boats and empower all students.
The program will address the issues in urban, suburban, and rural schools, recognizing our successes and our challenges are not limited to a sliver of our demographic.  More importantly, producers promise a “frank” discusses of public education’s strengths and weaknesses, an adjective that rarely finds its way into media coverage of education and education reform these days.  The show will focus on Ohio, as it is the microcosm of our nation, both politically and educationally.  
Kudos to PBS for taking up such a challenge and producing such a piece (and it isn’t even a John Merrow piece!).  And kudos to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation for funding this effort, lending its resources to educating and teaching us, in addition to empowering us to change the classrooms.  Hopefully, “Where We Stand” will provide some important lessons for the reformers, the status quoers, and all those in between to learn from and model as we move forward.
Every GPS out there requires you to enter you start point in order to track your path.  Maybe, just maybe, “Where We Stand” can provide those many educators and policymakers lost out there in the wilderness with a reliable start point on which to plot a new course. 

“On My Honor …”

Eduflack higher ed, Students

“On my honor as a student, I have neither given nor received aid on this assignment/exam.”

Eduflack cannot tell you how many times those words were written across the front of a blue book or on the cover of a term paper during his years at the University of Virginia.  The Honor Code was one of the first U.Va. traditions learned as a wet-behind-the-ears first year (sorry, there are no freshmen at Mr. Jefferson’s University.)  The code was started more than 145 years ago after a professor was shot dead on the Lawn.  Since then, it has weathered a number of storms and challenges, but still stands as THE standard when it comes to student honor.

The U.Va. Honor Code is brilliant in its simplicity.  It’s a one strike and your out code.  Single sanction.  Caught cheating, found plagiarizing, you are out of the University.  No exceptions, no excuses.  Honorable students, the sorts we want graduating from the University, must be honorable defenders of both academic freedom and academic achievement.

Once you leave U.Va.’s Grounds, the institution’s traditions never seem to leave you.  and I’d like to believe the Honor Code is one of those that remains part of a U.Va. grad’s DNA.  Maybe that is why I was so taken by an article in today’s Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/09/AR2008080901453.html?hpid=sec-education), citing the woes of students who have recently been expelled from their semester at sea program for violating the University of Virginia Honor Code.

It is unfortunate for these students that U.Va. is currently running the sea program.  That means U.Va. rules apply, even for those students from other institutions with lax standards or differing views of academic honor. It should come as no surprise, then, that they see the Honor Code’s single sanction approach as “punitive” and unfair and downright un-American.

According to the Post, one of the accused students summed up the problem best — “It’s not like we copied and pasted,” Gruntz said, “or bought it online.”  What lofty standards that student’s prospective alma mater sets for its students.

The root of the problem, it seems, is Wikipedia.  The students in question say they didn’t source Wikipedia enough in their term papers.  One told the Post it was simply an issue of paraphrasing, and that there were only so many ways to write up the summary of a topic.

For the record, Eduflack was a strong supporter of the single sanction — the one strike and you are out approach — Honor Code when I was a student there, and after I left.  I was part of a team at The Cavalier Daily that blew the lid off a national story involving the Honor Code and students of privilege trying to manipulate their social standing to avoid the justice of the Honor Committee.  I was a witness in an Honor trial.  And I have been proud the single sanction has remained in place, despite protests against it over the years.

But what the Post really missed is this isn’t an issue of the U.Va. Honor Code.  This is an issue of Wikipedia.  Semester at Sea has students from accredited institutions of higher education studying together in a common learning environment. It is intended to broaden horizons, expand academic inquiry, and stimulate the mind.  And we are using Wikipedia as primary source material for academic papers?

I’m all for Wikipedia.  It plays an important role in our society and on the Internet.  But it is far from a peer-reviewed journal or a card catalog-listed book from a reputable publisher.  It is not even a newspaper article that we used to dig out on microfiche (gosh, I’m old). 

At its heart, Wikipedia is an online bulletin board for information, a source where just about anyone can place their pushpin.  Even Wikipedia’s hosts warn users to “avoid misinformation that has been recently added and not yet removed.”  And in discussing Wikipedia as a research source, the site states “not everything in Wikipedia is accurate, comprehensive, or unbiased.”

So at the end of the day, this isn’t about honor.  It is about common sense.  It doesn’t matter if you are studying on a cruise ship, on Mr. Jefferson’s Lawn, Stanford’s Farm, or Cambridge Yard.  High-quality work is high-quality work.  Good research is good research.  And paraphrasing Wikipedia is neither.
 

God Bless the Texas Higher Ed Board

Eduflack higher ed, STEM, Teacher Education

Many in higher education bemoan the role of regional and state regulatory bodies.  Years ago, Eduflack worked with a start-up higher ed company seeking regional accreditation for new graduate programs.  We wanted accreditation fast, and we wanted it a week ago.  Each, week, we seemed to lament the latest hoop to jump, report to write, and visit to prepare for.

We must remember such processes are there for a reason.  Regional accreditors and state higher education boards are there to protect the quality and value of higher education.  Not everyone can run a college out of their basement or a warehouse.  Someone needs to go in and evaluate the quality of the program, the faculty, the facilities, and the school.  Think of these accreditors as the IAB of the higher ed system.  No one wants a visit from internal affairs, but all need to pay attention.

We remember this when we see articles like that recently published in the Dallas Morning News.  It seems the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board rejected a proposal from the Institute for Creation Sciences to establish a “creation sciences” degree for teachers looking to teach an alternative to evolution.  No doubt, legal action is sure to ensue.  Check out the full article here — http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/education/stories/042408dntexcreationscience2.917bf873.html.

I’ll leave the problem of teaching creationism in the public schools aside.  At some point, we need to respect the authorizing process and recognize these state and regional boards know exactly what they are doing.  Opposing this degree in a religiously charged environment like Texas is a hard thing to do.  Someone out there owes the Texas board a word of thanks for standing tall on such a controversial issue.

When I was in higher ed, many liked to say the regulators were simply defending the status quo and protecting the establishing institutions from true innovation.  Maybe that is partly true.  But they also preserve the integrity of our institutions and ensure that a licensed and accredited institution of higher education is held to high standards and is expected to teach proven facts.

Don’t mis-hear me, there is a place for creationism in classroom debate and intellectual discussion.  But what proven scientific texts is one using in a creation sciences?  Who has peer-reviewed the Bible?  And how do you play Devil’s advocate in a discussion on the fourth day of creation?

Let’s Make Dropping Out Illegal!

Eduflack early college, High School, higher ed, Students

By now, the numbers are ingrained on the souls of most education reformers.  Nearly a third of all ninth graders will not earn a high school diploma.  In our African-American and Hispanic communities, that number statistic rises to nearly 50 percent.  Imagine, a 50/50 chance of earning a high school diploma of you are a student of color.  The statistic is so staggering, there must be something we can do.

In today’s USA Today, we have the dueling editorials on a potential solutions — raising the drop-out age.  The line of thinking here is that if we raise the age a student must be in order to drop out of high school to 18, we can turn this crisis around.  Think of it.  Require, by law, every kid to stay in school until they are 18, and the drop-out rates will dramatically shrink.

Of course, 17 states already have such compulsory school attendance laws, with one more going online next summer.  Do we believe that those states — which include California, Louisiana, Ohio, and Texas — are not struggling with dropouts?  Are grad rates not an issue in LAUSD or New Orleans or Cleveland or Houston?  Of course not.  Those cities are facing the realities of drop-out factories, just like most major urban centers, even if drop-outs need to be 18 to officially leave school.

If we know anything about teenagers, it should be that mandates don’t change behavior.  A 17-year requirement doesn’t keep the average 10th grader from seeing an R-rated movie.  A 21-year age requirement doesn’t keep seniors from taking a sip of beer or a slug of Boone’s Farm.  We have underage driving. We have illegal drug use.  Kids will go after what they want, regardless of the prohibitions or the consequences.  The challenge — and the opportunity — is to convince them to make a good decision.  We don’t chain them to their high school desks, we need to demonstrate to them that they want to stay and they need to stay.

So how do we do that?  Last month, I made reference to some focus groups I did with students on the value and need for high school.  Robert Pondiscio and the folks over at the Core Knowledge Blog (http://www.coreknowledge.org/blog/) hoped they would soon learn a little more about Eduflack’s experiences.  So here goes.

Back in the fall, I spent weeks meeting with eight, ninth, and 10th graders from a state that is pretty representative of the United States.  Strong and not-so-strong urban centers, along with booming suburbs, and struggling rural areas.  A strong commitment to K-16 education, yet major industry leaving the cities and towns that have long depended on it.  Educators and business leaders committed to improvement, yet students not sure what opportunity would be available to them.

My goal was to learn what low-income students thought of their high school offerings and their opportunities for the future.  I didn’t spend my time in the suburbs or with the honors or college prep students.  I met with poor urban students, and I met with poor rural students.  Most came from families where college had never been an option.  And all came from homes with a very real fear that this generation may not be as successful as the generation before it.

I planned for the worst.  I expected students to justify, or even respect, dropping out.  How good union jobs could be found without a high school diploma or how gangs and other outside influences made school a lesser priority.  But what I heard during this experience gave me hope, and made it clear we can improve high school graduation rates simply by boosting relevance, interest, and access.

What did I hear?  In general:

* Students understand and appreciate the link between high school and “good” careers.
* For virtually all students, dropping out is not a productive option.  For many, they don’t even think you can get a fast food job today without that diploma.
* Students know relevant courses such as those found in STEM programs are key to obtaining meaningful employment after school.
* They are eager to pursue postsecondary opportunities while in high school.  They may not know anyone who has taken an AP or dual enrollment course, but they know it has value.
* Students want more career and technical education offerings.  They know these are relevant courses that link directly to future jobs.

And what more did Eduflack learn?  The greatest obstacle we face is awareness.  This isn’t about requiring kids to stay in school.  This is about opening opportunities and helping them see the choices and the pathways available to them.  Today’s high schools are not one-size-fits-all.  And that’s OK.  Today’s students want to know what’s available to them and what aligns with their aptitudes and their interests.  They want a consumer-based educational experience.

Parents still play a key role in this little dance, as does the business community.  Students expect their parents to push and guide them.  They may not always listen, but students know they need their parents with them as they head down those pathways.  With businesses, students just want to learn about the opportunities.  What is needed to become a physician assistant or a manager at the local manufacturing plant or a graphic designer.  Today’s students do have career aspirations, but most of them have never met someone who holds that job nor do they know what is needed to achieve such a position.  Now is the time for businesses to educate their future workforce.

I’ve done similar focus groups across the nation over the last decade, and the findings have been remarkably similar.  Students have a far better sense for their futures than we give them credit for.  They know it will be hard.  They know they’ll need help.  But they know there are multiple pathways available to them.  They just need their teachers and parents and priests and community leaders to see it to.

These kids aren’t dropping out of high school because it is too hard or because they are finally old enough that they can stop going to school and stay at home and watch TV all day.  They leave because they don’t see the relevance.  They don’t see how the classes they are taking crosswalk to their career or life goals.  They don’t believe postsecondary education may be possible for them.  They don’t believe they have the ability to gain access to those multiple pathways. 

Raising the drop-out age won’t change that.  If we want more students to stay in high school, earn their diplomas, and pursue postsecondary education, we need to inspire and motivate them.  We need to give them hope.  We need to demonstrate that high school is the first step toward a happy and successful life.  It needs to be relevant.  It needs to be interesting and engaging.  And it needs to lift up all students, not talk down to them with mandates and lowered expectations.
  

The Relevance of College

Eduflack early college, High School, higher ed

For some time now, a hot topic in education reform has been the relevance of high school.  We talk about aligning courses with student interests.  We discuss how good jobs require high school diplomas.  We hypothesize on the hard and soft skills today’s high schools provide tomorrow’s workers.  The result?  Dual enrollment, STEM education, new graduation requirements, and higher-stakes exit testing.

But what about the relevance of postsecondary education?  We’re quick to throw out the statistic that 90 percent of new jobs in the next decade will require postsecondary education.  But what type of education?   It all leaves us with a big question — are our colleges and universities preparing today’s undergraduates for careers?  More importantly, are our institutions of higher education producing graduates who can meet the needs and demands of our 21st century economy?  Should they be?

These are very big questions.  We like to believe that college is a place to learn new things, experience new experiences, and meet new people.  College is a place to broaden our minds, home to lessons on topics such as art history, philosophy, Mesopotamian history, and ancient tools of ancient cultures.  Many will tell you, if you want to prepare for a job, go to a trade school.  College is for developing and conditioning the mind as a whole.

Where does the truth lie?  Yesterday, USA Today’s Mary Beth Marklein wrote of a new Association of American Colleges and Universities study of 301 business leaders.  http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2008-01-22-graduate-assessment_N.htm  The findings seem fairly straight-forward.  The majority of employers believe half of college graduates lack the skills and knowledge for today’s jobs.  Internships are far more important than college transcripts.  And we want to know which schools do the best job of preparing our students for work.

What does this all mean?  For one, it validates Eduflack’s personal experiences.  I am a proud graduate of the University of Virginia, one of the top public institutions in the nation.  I took classes such as the Female Gothic (far more Jane Austin than any man should ever have to read), and I considered taking courses such as History of the Circus.  All of it in the name of broadening my mind.

I also recognized the importance of internships and skill development.  (Self motivated, mind you, there were no advisors or professors telling me how to secure internships or about the skills for my career path.)  A polisci course in U.S. Congress helped me secure an internship with U.S. Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV, which led to other Hill internships which then led to full-time jobs.  I spent a year as managing editor of The Cavalier Daily, U.Va.’s paper of record, which gave me the experience of putting out a 16-page newspaper each day, while managing a volunteer staff of more than 100.  I left U.Va. with a full clip packet (showing I could write) and practical experience from my internships and newspaper leadership.  The result — lots of good jobs.  In my early days, I showed a lot of my past op-eds or news clips and I talked of my Hill experiences.  I was never asked about my GPA, never probed on the courses I took, and was never asked about the symbolism of Mary Shelley’s monster.

Why does all this matter?  Today’s students spend a lot of money for those college diplomas.  The tab for an in-state, public college degree is now likely to run at least $50K.  THose going to private institutions could end up spending more than $200K when all is said and done.  And that’s assuming one completes a program in the expected four years, not the more likely five or six.  We take out those loans because we expect return on the investment.  And that return is not to be the smartest person at a cocktail party, it’s to gain a rewarding, well-paying career. 

Ultimately, there needs to be a balance.  Yes, we can study Gothic novels, but we also should be taking the courses that help develop critical skills for the workplace.  College students should be able to demonstrate that they attained knowledge in college and they know how to effectively apply it in real-world or real-career situations.  College not only gave them the tools to success, but it showed them how to use it.  A college degree means one is career and life ready.

The business leaders in AACU’s study seem to recognize that.  And it is a message we all should take to heart. 

College is indeed a worthwhile investment.  It provides an opportunity for exploration and thought.  It stimulates both the mind and soul.  But it also needs an end game.  The goal of college should not be to gain access to a graduate school, where we gain the training needed to secure a good job.  That undergraduate degree should be a gateway to gainful employment.

The AACU data also raises an interesting question.  Employers hope college graduates will be ready for available jobs.  How far are we from employers expecting guarantees from colleges and universities?  If a graduate lacks the skills to handle an entry-level white collar job, they should go back to college (at the college’s expense) to gain the needed skills and experiences.  Then, a college diploma will mean something, college will be relevant, and all involved will see the true ROI of postsecondary education.

Presidents for Presidents!

Eduflack higher ed, John McCain, Presidential campaign

Every four years, we see swelling lists of presidential endorsers, those individuals and organizations that are backing a particular candidate.  Any savvy (or semi-savvy) political staffer (Eduflack included) knows the enormous value of such backing.  The right names signal support from those in the know.  Their endorsement can often bring buckets full of votes and contributions.

We get endorsements from business leaders, veterans, labor leaders, entertainers, other politicians, teachers, church leaders, environmentalists, Nobel Prize winners, past Cabinet officials, and just about any other group we can think of.  Those endorsers make a choice based on what they believe is best for the nation and best on those issues they are most passionate about.

Which makes a news item in today’s Inside Higher Education all that much more interesting.  Scott Jaschik reports on the president of the University of Florida endorsing John McCain.  (http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/01/23/endorse)

Yes, UF President Bernie Machen’s endorsement of the Straight Talk Express is major news in higher education.  College presidents just don’t do such a thing.  Maybe they are above such politics.  Maybe there is too much at risk, with federal research dollars riding on presidential appointments.  Whatever the reason, it just isn’t done.  College presidents are supposed to be non-partisan and apolitical.  After all, there is more than enough campus politics to whet their appetites for a true political fight.

But it is the right thing to do?  As we consider presidential nominees, do the carpenters and the longshoremen and the WWII veterans and former secretaries of agriculture carry a stronger voice than college presidents?  Does the voice of a college president matter?

For the past six or seven months, the education community has been stammering and stuttering on the need for greater emphasis on education in the presidential elections.  We look at presidential education platforms, and many of them are chock full of details on students loans and college readiness.  We listen to speeches on the economy and job creation, and can’t shake the notion that colleges and universities are often the largest or second largest employer in their communities.

All that said, shouldn’t university presidents be coveted endorsements?  And more importantly, shouldn’t college presidents be on the record as to which candidate or candidates are strongest when it comes to student finances, college readiness, research dollars, or general support for our postsecondary institutions? 

As the son of a retired college president, I watched as my father carefully walked the nonpartisan college presidential line.  He worked successfully with governors and senators of both political parties, winning support and dollars for his institutions, regardless of what party was in power.  I knew, though, that he was also a community leader, and that people sought his perspective on the issues and candidates of the day (and it didn’t hurt that he is a presidential historian by training).  His endorsement could have helped local and state candidates.

That said, leaders like Bernie Machen or University of Miami President Donna Shalala (who has endorsed Clinton) should be the norm, not the exception.  If we want education to have a prime position in the debate, we need strong advocates and experts to step forward and ensure that education is at the table and heard in all corners of the room.  Any union official can tell you that happens when you endorse at the national scale.

So for all those college presidents, chancellors, system heads, and even K-12 superintendents watching Campaign 2008, take note.  If you want greater dollars invested in your schools, if you want more attention and resources devoted to your students, if you want your economic development investments noticed or your community programs emulated, you need to stand up and articulate what you believe in and what candidate best aligns with your mission and your successes to date.  You need to tell us what type of president will strengthen your institution and your community.  You need to put your stake in the ground, before all of the prime real estate is taken.

How Do I Rank?

Eduflack higher ed, Marketing, NCLB, Online Education, PR

We all like to know how we are doing, particularly compared with others.  The cornerstone of NCLB is assessment, providing the tools so we can compare our schools with those in the next district or the next state.  But what do rankings really say?  How effective a communication tool are school rankings?

Today’s WaPo has a number of respected colleges and universities calling for major changes in the ever-popular US News & World Report college rankings.  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/19/AR2007051900665.html  At the same time, Newsweek magazine announces it Top 100 high schools.  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18757087/site/newsweek/

As for Eduflack, I went to a West Virginia high school who’s experience with the Newsweek rankings is limited to receiving the High Schools issue each year.  But I also graduated from U.Va., regularly rated the top public university of the nation.  So I’ve been part of the best of times and the worst of times, if you will.

Such rankings, like all data, have their merits if scientifically sound and used properly.  And such rankings, like any communications tool, can be effective if communicated appropriately.  How do we do it?

1. Use it to support the overall message.  Students aren’t attending a college because of its ranking.  They want a good school that provides for their academic and social needs.  They visit campus, they like what they see.  When the rankings come, it validates the decision.  It supports the belief that X College is a good school, a school worth attending.  A student feels good about the choice because USNWR (and the respected folks who create their rankings) have agreed with their view of X College.  It comes with a seal of approval, and a seal that teachers, parents, and guidance counselors respect.

2. Use it aspirationally.  Rankings are motivation.  Want to rise from third to second tier in regional colleges?  See who is in the second tier and try to emulate their programs and their marketing.  Same goes for high schools.  Enhance AP or IB offerings.  Mirror what those above you are doing.  The best thing about such rankings is they provide a spotlight on best practices, practices that our K-16 system desperately needs.

3. Promote, promote, promote.  Everyone believes they are doing a good job.  And everyone wants to be recognized for it.  But those schools that “rate” do so because they know how to effectively market their goals, they actions, and their successes.  Such rankings are an honor you must seek.  Look at the Newsweek high school rankings.  For months, Jay Matthews has been soliciting recommendations of schools who are doing it right, interesting schools that could be featured as part of the Top High Schools issue.  Part of any school improvement plan, whether it be K-12 or higher ed, should be effective marketing and communications.

Yes, some will say it sends the wrong message to rank high schools, particularly since most students don’t have a choice where they attend.  And others will agree with the college prezes that IHEs shouldn’t be using USNWR to promote their institutions.  But both can be a valuable communications tool.  And as we look to improve our schools, we can use every piece of data and information we can get, particularly those schools that are doing it right.



 



<a href=”http://technorati.com/claim/tfumsfiijg&#8221; rel=”me”>Technorati Profile</a>