We need to better prepare our students to compete on the world economy. Such is the driving mantra behind current pushes to improve our high schools and strengthen the links between secondary and postsecondary education. Our students need the skills to succeed, they need the math, science, and problem-solving skills to hold their own against other students around the world. They need the skills to gain good jobs in the United States. And they need strong math and science skills to ensure such jobs remain here in the United States. Math and science skills are necessary to keeping our economy strong and our future generations employed. All strong rhetoric, all believed by Main Street USA, and all pretty damned true.
That’s why Eduflack was a little disappointed to read a piece by Sarah D. Sparks in Education Daily a little more than a week ago, which reported that the United States will not participate in the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study, or TIMSS, for physics and calculus.
Eduflack waited to comment on this development to see how those who truly understand the policy implications reacted. And the response was as surprising as the announcement — deafening silence.
Why is the U.S. Department opting out of TIMSS? Two simple reasons. The first is cost. The second is lack of students. What is the United States lacking? Apparently, we don’t have a few million dollars to conduct the study and we don’t have the 16,000 students needed to comprise an effective sample size.
Yes, such reasoning seems quite questionable, particularly with everything we know about NCLB funding, the demand for greater assessments, and the rapid increase in science and math instruction thanks to programs like STEM, early colleges, and similar high school reforms.
At a time when the international team is looking to go head-to-head with the United States, we choose to sit on the bench. At a time when we tell our kids that they need to gain math and science skills to succeed in both college and career, we send then to the showers before they even have a chance to pitch the first inning. And at a time when we should be doing all we can to post impressive stats and demonstrate we are the world leaders, instead we choose to hide behind the stats on the back of our bubblegum cards, those numbers that defined us in years past.
But what, exactly, does this announcement say about us? Instead of dwelling on what we cannot do or where we see the failings, Eduflack offers up some talking points for Secretary Spellings on this important topic.
* Ensuring that our high school students are truly prepared to compete in the global economy must become a fiscal priority for us. We are, rightfully so, pouring billions and billions into elementary- and middle-school improvements and testing (including TIMSS for fourth and eighth graders), but the current federal commitment to high schools is but a fraction. We need to educate and train our students, particularly those in high school, in math and science, and we need to effectively assess those skills.
* We need to applaud those school districts that are taking the responsibility to prepare all students for the future. Early colleges and dual-enrollment offerings. AP and IB programs. STEM education. All of these are important steps our schools, districts, and states are taking to ready our kids for the challenges and opportunities of the future.
* The United States stands as the true home for innovation. And we’re willing to make the investment to keep it that way. Our future is too important not to equip our students with the math, science, and problem-solving skills needed to achieve, both in school and in life.
Yes, TIMSS is merely one measure of our effectiveness. It is a tool, like other assessments, to ensure we are on the right track. And it is one of the few we have to effectively measure our abilities versus our trading partners and our economic competitors around the globe. Not participating in the study reads like we are worried about our ability to compete and our ability to excel. If we aren’t ready for the big leagues, then we need to get back into training and prepare ourselves for true competition. You can’t win the big game of life if you’re unwilling to step onto the field.
higher ed
College Costs How Much?
It’s that time of year again. Yesterday, the College Board released its annual Cost of College report. And like the years before it, the numbers aren’t pretty. Tuition and fees at public four-year colleges are up 6.6 percent from last year. At private colleges, there is a 5.5 percent increase.
At face value, that doesn’t seem too bad. But let’s take a look at increases over the past decade. For those going to private schools, tuition and fees have increased 72 percent over the last 10 years. And in our public institutions, those schools designed to provide ALL students with a postsecondary education, costs have increased nearly 100 percent since 1997. USA Today has the story — http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2007-10-22-college-price_N.htm?csp=34.
Only the price of a gallon of gasoline has experienced greater inflation that a college degree. Even healthcare costs haven’t increased, over the same time period, like college tuition prices.
What message does this send, particularly at a time when we preach that very student needs a postsecondary education? Is that college diploma 100 percent more valuable? Are starting salaries out of college 72 percent higher today than they were in 1997? Are we learning more in college today? Do we have greater access to full professors? Are classes smaller? Are offerings more specialized and relevant?
Of course, the answer to all of these is no. Prices are rising because they can rise. College endowments are at an all-time high; sticker price doesn’t haven’t to exceed inflation. More student loan money is available today than ever before. But we don’t need every student to max out to go to college. We do it because it is expected. We know college tuition will exceed inflation every year, and we have come to accept it.
If we are really going to sell today’s high school students on the notion that a postsecondary education is necessary for career and life success (and the data shows that it is), we need to also show that quality postsecondary education can be found at an affordable price. Not everyone needs a $160K college diploma to secure a good job. Not everyone needs to borrow six figures in student loans to get a meaningful college degree.
Eduflack looks at his 18-month-old son, and often wonders what college is in his future. Eduwife is a proud grad of Stanford University (BA and MA) and UPenn (Ed.D.). At this rate, Eduflack is looking at starting tuition and fees for Stanford’s freshmen of 2024 coming in at nearly $125,000 a year. It’s never too early to teach Eduson football or golf.
At face value, that doesn’t seem too bad. But let’s take a look at increases over the past decade. For those going to private schools, tuition and fees have increased 72 percent over the last 10 years. And in our public institutions, those schools designed to provide ALL students with a postsecondary education, costs have increased nearly 100 percent since 1997. USA Today has the story — http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2007-10-22-college-price_N.htm?csp=34.
Only the price of a gallon of gasoline has experienced greater inflation that a college degree. Even healthcare costs haven’t increased, over the same time period, like college tuition prices.
What message does this send, particularly at a time when we preach that very student needs a postsecondary education? Is that college diploma 100 percent more valuable? Are starting salaries out of college 72 percent higher today than they were in 1997? Are we learning more in college today? Do we have greater access to full professors? Are classes smaller? Are offerings more specialized and relevant?
Of course, the answer to all of these is no. Prices are rising because they can rise. College endowments are at an all-time high; sticker price doesn’t haven’t to exceed inflation. More student loan money is available today than ever before. But we don’t need every student to max out to go to college. We do it because it is expected. We know college tuition will exceed inflation every year, and we have come to accept it.
If we are really going to sell today’s high school students on the notion that a postsecondary education is necessary for career and life success (and the data shows that it is), we need to also show that quality postsecondary education can be found at an affordable price. Not everyone needs a $160K college diploma to secure a good job. Not everyone needs to borrow six figures in student loans to get a meaningful college degree.
Eduflack looks at his 18-month-old son, and often wonders what college is in his future. Eduwife is a proud grad of Stanford University (BA and MA) and UPenn (Ed.D.). At this rate, Eduflack is looking at starting tuition and fees for Stanford’s freshmen of 2024 coming in at nearly $125,000 a year. It’s never too early to teach Eduson football or golf.
Show Me The Education Money
Across the nation, governors and state legislatures are preparing their budgets and promoting their visions for this new year. Unfortunately, 2008 is looking like recent years. Rising obligations for healthcare and criminal justice and roads and virtually everything else. Concerns about shrinking state coffers, due in part to a slumping housing marketing and concerns for a recession. And great education reform ideas put pack in the drawer for another year, pining for the money, public support, or community need to move idea into law.
Yes, it is a sad story. But does it have to be that way? Is there a way to talk about education this time of year, without it just being tossed into the same ole education bucket again?
If we look at those issues that have a chance of making it into the game — preK, STEM, high school reform, postsecondary access — we are provided an interesting picture. Yes, they are all education issues. But each and every one of them can also be positioned as economic development issues. An investment in one or more of them can have a direct impact on jobs, increased revenues, economic investment, and community empowerment. And that’s how you move them out of the “great ideas” drawer and onto the text of the State of the State address.
For too long, we’ve talked about education for education’s sake. PreK is simply about those sweet little kids. High school reform is to keep teenagers engaged and in class. Postsecondary access is needed because we’ve sold the nation on the belief that everybody needs to go to college.
But let’s look (and talk about) this a little differently. We’re already seeing it with STEM education issues. STEM isn’t just about putting more kids in math and science classes. It is about preparing all students for 21st century jobs. It is about making a high school diploma more relevant and more in line with what employers need from their incoming workforce. It is about global competition and providing work and life skills for all students — not just those going on to teach trig or become doctors or rocket scientists.
This month, we’re sure to hear some talk in state capitols about investment in STEM education. And we’ll hear it most loudly where K-12, higher ed, and the business community are working together. Why? It’s not just an ed issue; it’s an employment issue. And with employment comes a stronger economy. And a reduced burden on the state justice and health systems. An investment in STEM affects all.
The same argument can be made for high school reform, where we are ensuring high school educations are relevant and effectively preparing all students for school career and life. With postsecondary access, we focus on the ability to enroll in the work certificate programs, community colleges, and four-year institutions that can prepare us for the careers of our dreams. Even preK, once we key in on the high-quality, results-driven programs, ensures that all young students — even those from the poorest families — develop the tools to access the pathways to those good jobs.
The era of education reform for education’s sake is over. If state-level reforms are to take hold, we need to focus on return on investment. Show that a dollar of education today will reap five dollars of increased revenue or three dollars of reduced social services costs tomorrow. The data’s there. The interest is there. We just need to bring it all together. It may seem silly, but we need to demonstrate it is relevant.
Yes, we need ed reform and we need to articulate why. And the reason is not increased test scores. That is merely a measurement to know we are doing our job. At the end of the day, we reform to improve. We improve to provide today’s students with a better education, a better job, and a better life than their parents. It may be clichéd, but it’s the truth.
“Dropout Factories”
From most media coverage over the past few years, we like to think of our high schools as incubators for success. We throw around terms like rigor and relevance. We opine that every child should go onto to college. We push efforts to add additional AP or IB or dual enrollment programs to our schools. And then, researchers such as those at Johns Hopkins throw a big wake-up call at our feet, reminding us of how far we still need to go.
If you missed it, Nancy Zuckerbrod at AP has the story. http://www.boston.com/news/education/k_12/articles/2007/10/30/1_in_10_schools_are_dropout_factories?mode=PF The summary: one in 10 high schools in the United States post a graduation rate of 60 percent or less. That’s 17 percent of all of the high schools in the United States.
For years, these school districts have underestimated the problem. The folks at Manhattan Institute would tell us an urban school district’s graduation rate was 55 percent. The district would self-report 87 percent. And we’d believe the latter. We all want to believe statistics, and given the choice want to believe those that make us feel better about ourselves. And there is no feel-good message in half of our students failing to earn a high school diploma.
We’d like to believe this is a problem in our urban areas. But it isn’t limited to those communities. These factories are just as likely in rural communities. Why? It’s purely economics. We’re far more likely to find these schools in poor communities. Dropout factories may be colorblind, but they know per-capita income. According to the Johns Hopkins researchers, Florida and South Carolina have the greatest percentage of these schools.
Those communities providing refuge to such schools have been all abuzz about their dropout factories over the past few days. We’re quick to defend, to refute, and to deny. Such response is natural in crisis communications, and losing nearly half your students before graduation is indeed a crisis. But if there were ever a time calling out for vision and for strategy, it has to be now.
In her piece, Zuckerbrod points to a number of legislative proposals to help fix the problem. A common graduation rate formula is essential, as is stronger data collection and effective disaggregation of that data. Then what?
We need to ask WHY these students are dropping out. Despite popular opinion, few students leave high school because it is too hard. To the contrary, many will leave because it is too boring or irrelevant.
Are they leaving to go to work? If so, what “good” job is out there for a 16-year-old high school dropout? Some say they are dropping out because of NCLB or testing. But I’d opine that most high school students don’t even know what NCLB is.
If we can gather data on why students leave school, we can craft the messages to get them to stay in school. Even without the data, we know that the message must be personalized, must be relevant, and must just be common sense. What does Eduflack mean?
* We need to start early. Focusing on high schools and careers in ninth or 10th grade is just too late. We need to get our kids on the right paths in middle school, get them thinking about the future, and show them the opportunities that really exist. Middle school is the time to dream … and to plan.
* We need to better link high school to career. Why take Algebra II? If you want to design video games or work in a hospital, you need it. High school courses are relevant.
* We need to take an interest. In talking with today’s high school students about dropping out, most are staying in school because their teachers know them and take an interest in their lives. We get rid of the factory mentality when we treat students as individuals.
* Every child has opportunity. Education is the great equalizer. With it, any student — regardless of socioeconomic level — can succeed. But they need that high school diploma (and likely college degree) to do so.
* We cannot accept mediocrity. We should be appalled by with the dropout rates reported by Manhattan Institute and others. We simply cannot afford to lose a third of our students before the end of high school (and then another sizable group between high school and college completion).
I know, I know, I’m up on my high horse again. But sometimes, we just have to ride that stag. Dropout factories are simply unacceptable. Dropping out of high school is never a viable choice. If we want to build a new, strong economy based on high skill jobs, these are just the sort of factories that need a visit from the wrecking ball. We need schools that prepare us for the rigors, challenges and opportunities of the future, not those that keep us from participating in that future.
If you missed it, Nancy Zuckerbrod at AP has the story. http://www.boston.com/news/education/k_12/articles/2007/10/30/1_in_10_schools_are_dropout_factories?mode=PF The summary: one in 10 high schools in the United States post a graduation rate of 60 percent or less. That’s 17 percent of all of the high schools in the United States.
For years, these school districts have underestimated the problem. The folks at Manhattan Institute would tell us an urban school district’s graduation rate was 55 percent. The district would self-report 87 percent. And we’d believe the latter. We all want to believe statistics, and given the choice want to believe those that make us feel better about ourselves. And there is no feel-good message in half of our students failing to earn a high school diploma.
We’d like to believe this is a problem in our urban areas. But it isn’t limited to those communities. These factories are just as likely in rural communities. Why? It’s purely economics. We’re far more likely to find these schools in poor communities. Dropout factories may be colorblind, but they know per-capita income. According to the Johns Hopkins researchers, Florida and South Carolina have the greatest percentage of these schools.
Those communities providing refuge to such schools have been all abuzz about their dropout factories over the past few days. We’re quick to defend, to refute, and to deny. Such response is natural in crisis communications, and losing nearly half your students before graduation is indeed a crisis. But if there were ever a time calling out for vision and for strategy, it has to be now.
In her piece, Zuckerbrod points to a number of legislative proposals to help fix the problem. A common graduation rate formula is essential, as is stronger data collection and effective disaggregation of that data. Then what?
We need to ask WHY these students are dropping out. Despite popular opinion, few students leave high school because it is too hard. To the contrary, many will leave because it is too boring or irrelevant.
Are they leaving to go to work? If so, what “good” job is out there for a 16-year-old high school dropout? Some say they are dropping out because of NCLB or testing. But I’d opine that most high school students don’t even know what NCLB is.
If we can gather data on why students leave school, we can craft the messages to get them to stay in school. Even without the data, we know that the message must be personalized, must be relevant, and must just be common sense. What does Eduflack mean?
* We need to start early. Focusing on high schools and careers in ninth or 10th grade is just too late. We need to get our kids on the right paths in middle school, get them thinking about the future, and show them the opportunities that really exist. Middle school is the time to dream … and to plan.
* We need to better link high school to career. Why take Algebra II? If you want to design video games or work in a hospital, you need it. High school courses are relevant.
* We need to take an interest. In talking with today’s high school students about dropping out, most are staying in school because their teachers know them and take an interest in their lives. We get rid of the factory mentality when we treat students as individuals.
* Every child has opportunity. Education is the great equalizer. With it, any student — regardless of socioeconomic level — can succeed. But they need that high school diploma (and likely college degree) to do so.
* We cannot accept mediocrity. We should be appalled by with the dropout rates reported by Manhattan Institute and others. We simply cannot afford to lose a third of our students before the end of high school (and then another sizable group between high school and college completion).
I know, I know, I’m up on my high horse again. But sometimes, we just have to ride that stag. Dropout factories are simply unacceptable. Dropping out of high school is never a viable choice. If we want to build a new, strong economy based on high skill jobs, these are just the sort of factories that need a visit from the wrecking ball. We need schools that prepare us for the rigors, challenges and opportunities of the future, not those that keep us from participating in that future.
College for Everyone?
As we move closer to the early 2008 primaries, the presidential candidates (particularly the Democratic ones) are starting to discuss their ideas on public education. We still have a long way to go before we truly know what the candidates will do to improve public education and boost student achievement (funding preK is a start, railing against NCLB not so much). But education is finally a second-tier issue in discussions, debates, and policy joustings.
And John Edwards is part of the chorus. As of late, Edwards has started floating the idea of “College for Everyone,” his plan to provide every American with one year of free college (tuition, fees, and books), in exchange for having taken a college prep curriculum in high school, holding a part-time job in college, and generally staying out of trouble in life.
It’s a wonderful start, but, to Eduflack, the message falls grossly short. Virtually everyone agrees that postsecondary education today is necessary for success tomorrow. It provides the skills needed for a good job. It provides choices. It provides opportunity. Be it a career certificate, two-year college degree, or four-year degree, postsecondary ed is a necessary component to contribute to the 21st century economy.
Edwards knows that. The self-made millionaire owes his a good chunk of his success to his postsecondary education. And as he tours the country talking about Two Americas, he has to know that education is the great equalizer between the haves and the have nots. We reduce the gap between the two Americas through education and through the notion that success can be attained by all.
Knowing that, why does Edwards limit College for Everyone to just one year? Are the doors of opportunity opened after taking a few 101 courses? Of course not. The path to success is accessed, in large part, through a degree. That diploma is a measurement of achievement. Employers aren’t looking for workers who have taken one year of intro courses. They want workers with college degrees.
When one looks at the number of organizations advocating for postsecondary education for all, one of the key messages is degree attainment. We have built a national dialogue that students must graduate from high school, and that dropping out is not an option. Postsecondary education is no different. Students must use their high school years to get college ready. And once the get to college, they need to earn their degree. The ole sheepskin is still the common measurement of academic success.
In proposing an ambitious plan to get kids to college, Edwards is simply playing the role of tease. The incentive should be a degree, not just a chance to hang out at the cool kids table for two semesters. Ultimately, Edwards’ goal should be to boost the number of first-generation students graduating from high school and earning a college degree. That’s the true road to equality and opportunity. Anything short, an we are dangling success in front of many, only to pull it back when they reach for it.
If we truly want to open the doors of postsecondary education to all students, we should be looking at adopting models that boost access and attainment, efforts like the Georgia Hope Scholarships. Readiness. Attainment. Application. That’s how we move students from high school through postsecondary and into career. The goal should be a college degree for all, not a course or two of college for most.
Without such a commitment, Edwards’ College for Everyone plan may only do one thing. That part-time job requirement may be the “path” that many students follow after they drop out of college after that first-year taste. It’ll be one of a handful of part-time jobs they hold to help pay the rent.
And John Edwards is part of the chorus. As of late, Edwards has started floating the idea of “College for Everyone,” his plan to provide every American with one year of free college (tuition, fees, and books), in exchange for having taken a college prep curriculum in high school, holding a part-time job in college, and generally staying out of trouble in life.
It’s a wonderful start, but, to Eduflack, the message falls grossly short. Virtually everyone agrees that postsecondary education today is necessary for success tomorrow. It provides the skills needed for a good job. It provides choices. It provides opportunity. Be it a career certificate, two-year college degree, or four-year degree, postsecondary ed is a necessary component to contribute to the 21st century economy.
Edwards knows that. The self-made millionaire owes his a good chunk of his success to his postsecondary education. And as he tours the country talking about Two Americas, he has to know that education is the great equalizer between the haves and the have nots. We reduce the gap between the two Americas through education and through the notion that success can be attained by all.
Knowing that, why does Edwards limit College for Everyone to just one year? Are the doors of opportunity opened after taking a few 101 courses? Of course not. The path to success is accessed, in large part, through a degree. That diploma is a measurement of achievement. Employers aren’t looking for workers who have taken one year of intro courses. They want workers with college degrees.
When one looks at the number of organizations advocating for postsecondary education for all, one of the key messages is degree attainment. We have built a national dialogue that students must graduate from high school, and that dropping out is not an option. Postsecondary education is no different. Students must use their high school years to get college ready. And once the get to college, they need to earn their degree. The ole sheepskin is still the common measurement of academic success.
In proposing an ambitious plan to get kids to college, Edwards is simply playing the role of tease. The incentive should be a degree, not just a chance to hang out at the cool kids table for two semesters. Ultimately, Edwards’ goal should be to boost the number of first-generation students graduating from high school and earning a college degree. That’s the true road to equality and opportunity. Anything short, an we are dangling success in front of many, only to pull it back when they reach for it.
If we truly want to open the doors of postsecondary education to all students, we should be looking at adopting models that boost access and attainment, efforts like the Georgia Hope Scholarships. Readiness. Attainment. Application. That’s how we move students from high school through postsecondary and into career. The goal should be a college degree for all, not a course or two of college for most.
Without such a commitment, Edwards’ College for Everyone plan may only do one thing. That part-time job requirement may be the “path” that many students follow after they drop out of college after that first-year taste. It’ll be one of a handful of part-time jobs they hold to help pay the rent.
Putting Our Money on a Winning Proposition
In education, the focus is often on people first, results second, and the money third. We think of the teachers and the students, then on achievement, and only then do we really start talking about dollars. We talk of per student costs, and compare our per-pupil spending with similar districts or with those who are outperforming us. The punchline, inevitably, is that we need more dollars for our classrooms.
Eduflack was taken by the discussion of two pricetags this Sunday morning, one depicting the worst of times, the other the possible best of the future. The first was a preview of Ted Koppel’s program this evening on California’s prison system. By his numbers, it is now $43,200 per year to send a student to Harvard University. It costs the State of California $43,000 per year to incarcerate an individual (and that person gets $200 upon leaving prison to get their lives started).
We can leave it to the economists and statisticians to tell us the long-term community effect of moving a quarter of those individuals from prison into a two- or four-year postsecondary institution. The effect of seeing there are opportunities that come from schoolhouse doors, rather than leading to prison doors. It’s an age-old fight, but it is one that still remains important, particularly as we now see that postsecondary education is a necessary piece to a successful life.
As disheartening as the Koppel numbers are, education reformers around the nation should take note of the second pricetag, featured in a column written in today’s Washington Post by Marc Fisher. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/06/AR2007100601111.html?hpid=topnews) We’ve all talked the talk on student preparedness for postsecondary education. We’ve recited the numbers on remediation and how the majority of today’s high school grads simply lack the skills to succeed in college. Now we have a response.
In his piece, Fisher throws a spotlight on an important initiative happening on the campus of the University of the District of Columbia. At UDC, professors saw a 50-percent dropout rate in organic chemistry courses. And for those who stuck in the class, nearly a third received Fs. All of this in a course required of those students seeking a career in medicine.
On top of that, 80 percent of UDC students were taking remedial math classes. Makes it so one is ready to just give up on trying to encourage UDC’s students — many low-income or minority or first-generation college-goers — to prepare for college, attend college, stay in college, and graduate with the ability to earn jobs in demanding fields like medicine, engineering, math, and such.
UDC’s solution? A summer program designed to provide college readiness to UDC’s incoming freshmen and fill the instructional gaps left by DCPS (since that’s where many of UDC’s students come from). By UDC’s count, the program is reaping major rewards. And the cost? About $2,000 per student.
Currently, the UDC program is only serving a small number of students, working from grant money from The Washington Post Co. and the federal government. But the early indications are positive, with unexpected consequences. The math intervention effort is not only boosting math ability, but it has raised reading scores for those students 10 percent.
Sure, it’s a pilot. But that doesn’t mean it isn’t a good idea. As we look at the best ways to spend our education dollars, as we look at ways to increase college readiness and college going in underserved communities, maybe, just maybe, UDC is on to something. At the very least, they’ve demonstrated it doesn’t take the largest check to generate measurable results. Our K-12 schools and the defenders of the status quo could learn a lot from that.
Eduflack was taken by the discussion of two pricetags this Sunday morning, one depicting the worst of times, the other the possible best of the future. The first was a preview of Ted Koppel’s program this evening on California’s prison system. By his numbers, it is now $43,200 per year to send a student to Harvard University. It costs the State of California $43,000 per year to incarcerate an individual (and that person gets $200 upon leaving prison to get their lives started).
We can leave it to the economists and statisticians to tell us the long-term community effect of moving a quarter of those individuals from prison into a two- or four-year postsecondary institution. The effect of seeing there are opportunities that come from schoolhouse doors, rather than leading to prison doors. It’s an age-old fight, but it is one that still remains important, particularly as we now see that postsecondary education is a necessary piece to a successful life.
As disheartening as the Koppel numbers are, education reformers around the nation should take note of the second pricetag, featured in a column written in today’s Washington Post by Marc Fisher. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/06/AR2007100601111.html?hpid=topnews) We’ve all talked the talk on student preparedness for postsecondary education. We’ve recited the numbers on remediation and how the majority of today’s high school grads simply lack the skills to succeed in college. Now we have a response.
In his piece, Fisher throws a spotlight on an important initiative happening on the campus of the University of the District of Columbia. At UDC, professors saw a 50-percent dropout rate in organic chemistry courses. And for those who stuck in the class, nearly a third received Fs. All of this in a course required of those students seeking a career in medicine.
On top of that, 80 percent of UDC students were taking remedial math classes. Makes it so one is ready to just give up on trying to encourage UDC’s students — many low-income or minority or first-generation college-goers — to prepare for college, attend college, stay in college, and graduate with the ability to earn jobs in demanding fields like medicine, engineering, math, and such.
UDC’s solution? A summer program designed to provide college readiness to UDC’s incoming freshmen and fill the instructional gaps left by DCPS (since that’s where many of UDC’s students come from). By UDC’s count, the program is reaping major rewards. And the cost? About $2,000 per student.
Currently, the UDC program is only serving a small number of students, working from grant money from The Washington Post Co. and the federal government. But the early indications are positive, with unexpected consequences. The math intervention effort is not only boosting math ability, but it has raised reading scores for those students 10 percent.
Sure, it’s a pilot. But that doesn’t mean it isn’t a good idea. As we look at the best ways to spend our education dollars, as we look at ways to increase college readiness and college going in underserved communities, maybe, just maybe, UDC is on to something. At the very least, they’ve demonstrated it doesn’t take the largest check to generate measurable results. Our K-12 schools and the defenders of the status quo could learn a lot from that.
More College Ranking Brouhaha
Just when we thought it was safe to go back into the higher education waters. Last week, U.S. News & World Report released its annual college rankings, suffering the growing criticism around methodology and the swelling group of four-year institutions choosing not to submit their data for review. Still, the top 25 remain strong (with Eduflack’s alma mater still one of the top public universities — Wahoowah!).
This week, Scott Jaschik at Inside Higher Ed unveils a new rankings controversy — the ranking of our nation’s top community colleges. http://insidehighered.com/news/2007/08/20/ccranking
Working with data from the Community College Survey of Student Engagement, Washington Monthly has assembled a list of America’s Best Community Colleges, published under a subhead banner — “Why they’re better than some of the ‘best’ four-year universities.”
CCSSE is quick to point out that its survey was not intended to serve as the ruler for the measurement of two-year colleges. Regardless, Washington Monthly has taken the available data, mixed it with graduation rates, and provided a vehicle to make educated choices, compare institutions, and help students better understand where their education dollars are going.
Does it matter? Of course it does. At no time in our nation’s history has our network of community colleges played such an important role in our education continuum. Community colleges and technical schools are now key in providing students the skills and knowledge they to perform in the 21st century economy. The pipeline between two- and four-year institutions is growing larger and stronger every year. And community colleges are finding the demands for education growing, as they deal with everything from an increased immigrant pool to workforce retraining and mid-career changers.
More importantly, though, Washington Monthly placed two-year colleges on relatively equal footing with four-years, an action that educators have struggled with for decades. The publication measured community colleges through categories such as enrollment, tuition rates, student-faculty interaction and graduation rates. It appears Education Sector assisted Washington Monthly with the study.
Why is it all so important? One may be able to quibble with the methodology or question some of the rankings, but this community college list sends some powerful messages.
* Quality and impact are key factors in choosing a school, whether it be two year or four year.
* There is a growing demand for data on our educational institutions.
* Community colleges are now one of the successful paths high school graduates can take to a rewarding career.
Community colleges should look at Washington Monthly’s rankings with pride. We rank when demand outweighs supply. We rank when we seek high quality and don’t want to settle. We rank when we want to know we’re making the right choices. We rank when we see value. This is a sign we are now starting to value the role of the community college in the K-20 education continuum.
This week, Scott Jaschik at Inside Higher Ed unveils a new rankings controversy — the ranking of our nation’s top community colleges. http://insidehighered.com/news/2007/08/20/ccranking
Working with data from the Community College Survey of Student Engagement, Washington Monthly has assembled a list of America’s Best Community Colleges, published under a subhead banner — “Why they’re better than some of the ‘best’ four-year universities.”
CCSSE is quick to point out that its survey was not intended to serve as the ruler for the measurement of two-year colleges. Regardless, Washington Monthly has taken the available data, mixed it with graduation rates, and provided a vehicle to make educated choices, compare institutions, and help students better understand where their education dollars are going.
Does it matter? Of course it does. At no time in our nation’s history has our network of community colleges played such an important role in our education continuum. Community colleges and technical schools are now key in providing students the skills and knowledge they to perform in the 21st century economy. The pipeline between two- and four-year institutions is growing larger and stronger every year. And community colleges are finding the demands for education growing, as they deal with everything from an increased immigrant pool to workforce retraining and mid-career changers.
More importantly, though, Washington Monthly placed two-year colleges on relatively equal footing with four-years, an action that educators have struggled with for decades. The publication measured community colleges through categories such as enrollment, tuition rates, student-faculty interaction and graduation rates. It appears Education Sector assisted Washington Monthly with the study.
Why is it all so important? One may be able to quibble with the methodology or question some of the rankings, but this community college list sends some powerful messages.
* Quality and impact are key factors in choosing a school, whether it be two year or four year.
* There is a growing demand for data on our educational institutions.
* Community colleges are now one of the successful paths high school graduates can take to a rewarding career.
Community colleges should look at Washington Monthly’s rankings with pride. We rank when demand outweighs supply. We rank when we seek high quality and don’t want to settle. We rank when we want to know we’re making the right choices. We rank when we see value. This is a sign we are now starting to value the role of the community college in the K-20 education continuum.
Reform is More Than a Four-Letter Word
OK, I’ll go first. My name is Eduflack, and I’m an NCLB-aholic. That was never my intention. It just seems that every time I look for information on education reform and how we can improve the schools, I’m sucked in by the flashing lights and attractive packaging of NCLB stories. Even when I try to get away from it, someone is offering me a taste of NCLB. Some HQT here, some accountability there, and a whole lot of SBRR just about everywhere. I admit it, I’m hooked. And I like it.
And as much as I am an unapologetic supporter of the law and its goals, I also realize there is far more to education reform than NCLB. Some of those topics — like high school reform and STEM — are already being discussed as additions to NCLB 2.0. But there has to be more to school improvement than our federal elementary and secondary education act.
Leave it to Checker Finn and Diane Ravitch to remind us of what else is out there. In a Wall Street Journal commentary yesterday (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118653759532491305.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries), the two focus on their desire to protect liberal arts education in the K-12 curriculum. Their goal: to ensure we continue to teach history, civics, literature, and such subjects alongside our math and science requirements.
During a time when we are so focused on our “world is flat” economy and competition with India, China, and other nations around the globe, Ravitch and Finn’s piece makes one take pause. They argue that to truly be competitive, students not only need technical skills, but they need to understand people, need to be thoughtful, and need to be equipped to question authority and ask, “why?”
Ultimately, they raise the issue of whether it needs to be all or nothing. Successful schools can focus on STEM and core subject assessments. But they can also teach the Great Books and Western Civ.
For two individuals who are best known for their research, they deserve credit for personalizing their cause. Citing the “academic” paths that made Steve Jobs, Alan Greenspan, and Warren Buffett successes helps most doubters see that it is not the academic major on the diploma, but what one does with their knowledge that really matters. And their turn of the phrase, calling for “leaves and flowers” to be added to STEM, definitely leaves it mark.
The great rhetorical challenge now is how one keeps focus on the NCLB building blocks necessary to provide the path to high-quality liberal arts education. Or more simply, how do you say we are spending too much time and money and effort on NCLB, when the reading skills NCLB provides under Reading First are essential to any student understanding Shakespeare or the great philosophers?
Regardless, with their think piece, Finn and Ravitch have definitely thrown the opening pitch in what could be a very interesting ed reform ballgame. If they can continue to talk about it, outside of the context of NCLB, it could also be one that fills the stands.
And as much as I am an unapologetic supporter of the law and its goals, I also realize there is far more to education reform than NCLB. Some of those topics — like high school reform and STEM — are already being discussed as additions to NCLB 2.0. But there has to be more to school improvement than our federal elementary and secondary education act.
Leave it to Checker Finn and Diane Ravitch to remind us of what else is out there. In a Wall Street Journal commentary yesterday (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118653759532491305.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries), the two focus on their desire to protect liberal arts education in the K-12 curriculum. Their goal: to ensure we continue to teach history, civics, literature, and such subjects alongside our math and science requirements.
During a time when we are so focused on our “world is flat” economy and competition with India, China, and other nations around the globe, Ravitch and Finn’s piece makes one take pause. They argue that to truly be competitive, students not only need technical skills, but they need to understand people, need to be thoughtful, and need to be equipped to question authority and ask, “why?”
Ultimately, they raise the issue of whether it needs to be all or nothing. Successful schools can focus on STEM and core subject assessments. But they can also teach the Great Books and Western Civ.
For two individuals who are best known for their research, they deserve credit for personalizing their cause. Citing the “academic” paths that made Steve Jobs, Alan Greenspan, and Warren Buffett successes helps most doubters see that it is not the academic major on the diploma, but what one does with their knowledge that really matters. And their turn of the phrase, calling for “leaves and flowers” to be added to STEM, definitely leaves it mark.
The great rhetorical challenge now is how one keeps focus on the NCLB building blocks necessary to provide the path to high-quality liberal arts education. Or more simply, how do you say we are spending too much time and money and effort on NCLB, when the reading skills NCLB provides under Reading First are essential to any student understanding Shakespeare or the great philosophers?
Regardless, with their think piece, Finn and Ravitch have definitely thrown the opening pitch in what could be a very interesting ed reform ballgame. If they can continue to talk about it, outside of the context of NCLB, it could also be one that fills the stands.
Deskilling Our Students?
Are our high schools effectively preparing our students for life beyond the schoolhouse doors? It is a question that groups like National Governors Association, Jobs for the Future, Alliance for Excellent Education, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and many others have lent their policy heft to. And it is an issue where the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has lent the heft of its coffers to. In a few short years, high school improvement has become THE ed reform issue.
This week, Eduflack was down at the Education Industry Association conference, hearing tales of SES, charters, technology, and entrepreneurship. There was one concept, though, that has stuck deep into the troubled mind of Eduflack. Deskilling.
When we look at high schools, we recognize that most of our secondary schools are still built on an educational model that is now vastly out of date. That’s why we are trying to restore rigor and relevance to the schools, demonstrating that high school is a necessary step to both college and career.
But how do we do it? In districts throughout the nation, we still have high school students sitting in row after row of desks, reading from hard-cover textbooks, taking mimeographed quizzes, and generally using the learning tools and approaches that their parents once used. Simply, we’re teaching 21st century students with 19th century approaches.
These students, of course, are coming to class equipped in a way their parents never envisioned. Strong computer skills. Communication skills derived from websites like MySpace and the like. Organizational skills coming from sites like MeetUp. Multimedia learning abilities from iPods and YouTube. Instant messaging. Blogs. Students are equipped with an unending list of skills and abilities that most of our public schools still don’t have a handle on. They utilize multiple ways of learning, without even knowing they are being taught.
And how do we approach such students, once they pass through the high school entryway? Simply, we deskill them. Instead of building on these abilities and providing instruction and learning opportunities through the mediums and vehicles that students know (and that future employers will benefit from) we are asking many of our students to leave their knowledgebase at the door, and pick up the textbook, sit at their one-piece desk, and be educated the way their forefathers were.
That’s a cryin’ shame. If we look under the hood of high school reform, we’re seeing successes in early colleges, redesigned classrooms, one-to-one computing, and distance education. We’re succeeding where our classrooms are evolving and meeting the learning, socialization, and communication skills of the students we’re serving. If we expect more from our students, we need to work with them, and not against them. We need to enhance their skills, not discourage them. We need to equip them, not deskill them.
If we want a skilled workforce, we can’t send the message that such skills have no place in a traditional classroom. In our multimedia world, we need a multimedia education. Don’t know what that means? Try asking one of the kids in your class. I’m sure they’ll be happy to teach, if we’re ready to learn.
This week, Eduflack was down at the Education Industry Association conference, hearing tales of SES, charters, technology, and entrepreneurship. There was one concept, though, that has stuck deep into the troubled mind of Eduflack. Deskilling.
When we look at high schools, we recognize that most of our secondary schools are still built on an educational model that is now vastly out of date. That’s why we are trying to restore rigor and relevance to the schools, demonstrating that high school is a necessary step to both college and career.
But how do we do it? In districts throughout the nation, we still have high school students sitting in row after row of desks, reading from hard-cover textbooks, taking mimeographed quizzes, and generally using the learning tools and approaches that their parents once used. Simply, we’re teaching 21st century students with 19th century approaches.
These students, of course, are coming to class equipped in a way their parents never envisioned. Strong computer skills. Communication skills derived from websites like MySpace and the like. Organizational skills coming from sites like MeetUp. Multimedia learning abilities from iPods and YouTube. Instant messaging. Blogs. Students are equipped with an unending list of skills and abilities that most of our public schools still don’t have a handle on. They utilize multiple ways of learning, without even knowing they are being taught.
And how do we approach such students, once they pass through the high school entryway? Simply, we deskill them. Instead of building on these abilities and providing instruction and learning opportunities through the mediums and vehicles that students know (and that future employers will benefit from) we are asking many of our students to leave their knowledgebase at the door, and pick up the textbook, sit at their one-piece desk, and be educated the way their forefathers were.
That’s a cryin’ shame. If we look under the hood of high school reform, we’re seeing successes in early colleges, redesigned classrooms, one-to-one computing, and distance education. We’re succeeding where our classrooms are evolving and meeting the learning, socialization, and communication skills of the students we’re serving. If we expect more from our students, we need to work with them, and not against them. We need to enhance their skills, not discourage them. We need to equip them, not deskill them.
If we want a skilled workforce, we can’t send the message that such skills have no place in a traditional classroom. In our multimedia world, we need a multimedia education. Don’t know what that means? Try asking one of the kids in your class. I’m sure they’ll be happy to teach, if we’re ready to learn.
Pay for Play
In marketing communications, there is no more important (and often misunderstood) term than ROI, or return on investment. We all want to know our money is being wisely spent, that we have results to show for our communications activities, and that such results are meeting the overall organizational goals.
In PR, a common mistake is thinking that media coverage is success. But if you can’t translate that coverage into increased sales, increased enrollment, increased membership, or increased donations, has the communications really met the organizational goal?
This is particularly true in education. Companies pay big money to advertise in education trade publications, exhibit at conferences and events, and just to get its organizational name or product associated with the big education story or education reform trend out there. While it may result in media coverage, such coverage is often gained at the expense of the brand and the value proposition.
That’s what makes today’s NY Times article on the Sustainable Operations Summit all the more interesting (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/10/education/10summit.html?_r=1&oref=slogin). The story is simple to tell. Sign up as a sponsor of the Summit, and organizers (CraigMichaels Inc. is the brainchild here) will guarantee 15 one-on-one meetings with decisionmakers from school districts or IHEs across the country.
At first blush, some may find the approach a little unseemly. But if you get under the hood, you see the effectiveness of the communications vehicle. You ensure that you are delivering your message directly to those who can make a decision. You are positioned to directly address their concerns and solve the problems that are keeping them up at night. And you have the ability to tailor your discussion directly to their demographics, needs, and expected outcomes. That, boys and girls, is almost the textbook definition of effective communications.
We all know it is harder and harder to get one’s message through to those we need to reach. There are too many filters, too many barriers, and too much white noise to be eternally effective. As long as the audience knows what it is signing up for (such as committing to attend such one-on-one marketing pitches), where’s the harm? It is far more transparent than off-site conference events or the junkets that have plagued the medical industry for years.
No matter what tactic or approach one uses to deliver the message, at the end of the day, success only comes when you have a strong message, strong proof, and a compelling story. For education reform organizations and companies, change doesn’t come from a one-on-one meeting. Yes, such meetings may open the door. But you can only keep it open if you can deliver and demonstrate, with consistency, that you are improving learning and student performance. And ain’t that a great conversation starter for those one-on-ones?
Eduflack By Patrick R. Riccards 