higher ed

From the Ed Trenches to the Real Ones

Eduflack higher ed, national standards, NCLB

It doesn’t happen every day, but we have some breaking education news on Capitol Hill today.  Rep. Buck McKeon of California has been named the new ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee.  For those who haven’t worked on the Hill or drunk the Kool-Aid, this is a huge deal, particularly as we are dealing with troop expansions in Afghanistan, withdrawals in Iraq, and future commitments we can never foresee.  McKeon will now be working with Chairman Ike Skelton of Missouri on issues of military personnel, armed services support, terrorism, and a host of other issues related to the protection of our nation and security around the globe.

So how does this affect our little ole education world?  Unfortunately, the move means that McKeon must now give up his position as the ranking member of the House Committee on Education and Labor.  After all of his work on higher education issues, cleaning up in the aftermath No Child Left Behind, and the advocacy of greater accountability and quality in our public schools, McKeon will pass the top Republican education chair to a new voice, likely Tom Petri of Wisconsin or Mike Castle of Delaware.  The full story can be found here, courtesy of The Hill.  
Even though Eduflack only worked for the Dems on Capitol Hill, I’ve had a soft spot for McKeon since launching this blog a few years ago.  His staff was one of the first congressional staffs to ensure that I was getting information and updates regarding what was happening on the committee, and this was after he lost his gavel following the 2006 elections.  So I appreciated that he (or his staff) understood the need for continued communications to a wide range of stakeholders.
I also appreciated the stances he took, even on “unpopular” issues.  To this day, I still think the Miller/McKeon version of NCLB reauthorization may end up the law of the land.  Last year, I even advocated for McKeon as a potential EdSec candidate.  Congressman McKeon worked hard on education issues, doing what he believes was best for improving our schools and boosting student achievement across the learning continuum.  That commitment will likely transfer into a new commitment to our men and women in uniform.  That’s a win for the Armed Services Committee and for the nation.
So what does this mean for the House Education Committee?  Chairman Miller is still ruling the roost, and nothing is going to change that (and his staff has gotten even better and more sophisticated at sharing information and keeping the blogosphere apprised of Committee doings).  Clearly it is a signal that Elementary and Secondary Education Act reauthorization is not on the immediate horizon.  But it also offers a little glimmer of what is possible.  If Congressman Castle can rise to the top slot, he and Chairman Miller could do a lot of good for our public schools, working on improvement efforts in a bipartisan fashion.  It may even be enough to make national standards and such a reality.  Now wouldn’t that be something.

Getting Halfway to the College Moon?

Eduflack Achievement gap, early college, High School, higher ed, Students

During his first official address to Congress back this winter (remember, trivia folks, it was not a State of the Union), President Barack Obama made the bold promise that, by 2020, the United States would have the highest percentage of college degree holders in the world.  Recognizing that postsecondary education is quickly becoming a non-negotiable for success in today’s economy (let alone tomorrow’s), it is a promise we need to back up.  And Obama did so recognizing that to get there, we need to turn out millions upon millions of additional college graduates on top of current levels.

So how do we accomplish that?  Improving high school graduation rates, particularly with historically disadvantaged students is a good first-step gateway.  Dual enrollment programs, where we help today’s students see they are capable of doing college-level work helps.  Boosting the number of first-generation college-goers is another.  But how about actually getting those students who enroll in college to actually earn the diploma?  That seems like a no-brainer.
Unfortunately, according to a new report released this AM from the American Enterprise Institute, it seems that a student enrolled at an institution of higher education has only a slightly better chance of earning a degree than an individual who stops at campus for direction, a t-shirt, or a restroom break.  According to AEI’s new study, Diplomas and Dropouts: Which Colleges Actually Graduate Their Students (and Which Don’t), only 53 percent of college-goers have a diploma six years after starting the process.  Don’t forget, college is intended to be a four-year endeavor.  So even when we give today’s students two extra years, only half of enrollees manage to actually gain that intended sheepskin.
The numbers get even scarier when you drill down.  For those postsecondary institutions with the least selective admissions criteria — or those dubbed “noncompetitive” institutions — only 35 percent of students graduate within six years.  Even among “competitive” schools, those falling in the bottom 10 are only graduating 20 percent of their kids in six years.
Not surprisingly, the highest graduation rates lie with the most competitive schools.  Grad rates decline as we move down the scale, from highly competitive to very competitive to competitive to less competitive to noncompetitive.
The AEI report presents top “honors” to 10 schools, identified as noncompetitive that scored the lowest when it comes to six-year graduation rates.  Mountain State University in West Virginia (18%), Bellevue University in Nebraska (18%), Heritage University in Washington (17%), University of Houston in Texas (16%), National American University of South Dakota (15%), American InterContinental University in Georgia (13%), Miles College in Alabama (11%), Jarvis Christian College of Texas (10%), Carlos Albizu University of Florida (10%), and Southern University in Louisiana, with a whopping 8 percent.  These schools were all found to be noncompetitive, with the lowest grad rates — a destructive combination.
For those who think money buys success, eight of the 10 lowest-graduating schools are private institutions, with the University of Houston and Southern University being the only public schools to make “the list.”
But we don’t want to just pick on the noncompetitive schools.  In those schools dubbed most competitive, we see a similar trend.  EIght of the 10 schools with the lowest graduation rates are private schools (Webb Institute, Reed College, Tulane University, University of Miami, George Washington University, Scripps College, Case Western Reserve University, Connecticut College, Occidental College, and University of Rochester.  The two publics with the lowest rates are both service academies — the US Air Force Academy and West Point.  For those two, we’d like to think that the standards outside the classroom are the reason for the lower-than-average grad rate among peers, and you don’t have a high proportion of students at Army or Air Force on the seven- or eight-year BA plan.  So let’s give the Air Force Academy and West Point the benefit of the doubt here.
What’s even more disturbing though, particularly when we consider the challenge issued by President Obama and current efforts to close the achievement gap in this country, are graduation rates on the campuses of our competitive Historically Black Colleges and Historically Hispanic Colleges.  For competitive HBCUs (33 were studied) the six-year grad rate is only 36.5 percent.  For IHHEs (30 schools studied), the numbers were slightly better, 44.3 percent.  The only bright spot (if you can dare call it that) in the disaggregation is that HBCUs are relatively level when it comes to graduation rates, with less competitive schools graduating 34.7 percent of their students and noncompetitive schools graduating 37.1 percent of their students, meaning a student at an HBCU has a relatively equal chance of graduating, regardless of the institution’s competitiveness classification.  On the flip side, with noncompetitive IHHEs, only 19.8 percent of students are graduating in six years.
What does all this tell us?  First off, if our goal is to increase the number of college degree holders in the United States, we need to start with the customers we have.  Forget the need to push more students onto the college path.  We first need to address the 47 percent of current pathwalkers we are failing.  There are no excuses for one’s change of earning a college diploma once in college to being the same as winning a coin flip.  Access is clearly not an excuse, and money certainly shouldn’t be.  We need to do a better job of finding out why these enrollees are not graduating, and then act (either institutionally or nationally) to reverse the trend and prioritize degree attainment over college going once and for all.  Despite what some may say, the postsecondary experience is not nearly as important as the credential.  We owe it to every student who passes through a college’s doors to make sure they leave with a degree.
Second, we need to take a much closer look at how we are serving our historically disadvantaged student groups.  Institutions are to be applauded for making more opportunities available to students of color and providing programs and institutions themselves to better meet student needs and expectations.  But competitive HBCUs should do better than one in three graduating.  And competitive IHHEs need to better than two in five graduating.  This is particularly true when the average competitive IHE is turning out grads at nearly double that rate.
But if the numbers tell us anything, it is that the college graduation problem is one that is color blind and income oblivious.  The real problem here is competitiveness and return on investment.  After decades of convincing every family that their child should go to college, we’ve literally build a college or university for every student.  As a result, the correspondence schools and diploma mills of the past have given way to noncompetitive institutions with open admissions and a come one, come all mentality.  For too many of those schools, the tuition check is the end game, not the diploma.  An enrolled student is a steady stream of income.  There is no incentive to graduate students.  Schools aren’t being held accountable for their graduation rates.  Perhaps they should, but they aren’t.  And that shows in the AEI data.
When he took office nearly half a century ago, President John F. Kennedy made the promise we would send a man to the moon.  As we’ve often heard, this was an audacious goal designed to spur interest and investment in the space program in general.  Obama has don
e the same thing, albeit with less fanfare and public enthusiasm, with his promise to be tops in the world when it comes to college degree holders.  With Kennedy, we couldn’t just go halfway to the moon and back.  It was all or nothing.  
The same is true for Obama’s college pledge.  We have 11 years to get to the postsecondary moon.  Only this time, we aren’t starting from scratch.  First order of business is getting those students who are already in the system graduated.  Improving that 53 percent grad mark to 75 percent gets us far closer to our goal.  
But if we are going to have postsecondary impact for decades to come, we need to take a close look at the product we are selling.  Noncompetitive schools with no accountability and little ROI hurt us all in the long run.  There is no getting around it.  Yes, every student needs some form of postsecondary education to succeed in the 21st century economy.  After all of these years, who knew we needed to say that education needed to bring with it a modicum of quality.  For those who say the accreditation process is too difficult or onerous, this data should give them a great deal of pause.  If anything we need to be tougher on our IHEs and expect more.  Otherwise, we may simply be sliding into a game of rock-paper-scissors to see if we earn our diploma or not. 

Changing the Game on College Funding

Eduflack High School, higher ed, Students, Workforce

We have all heard the stories (and jokes) about college students who are on the five-, six-, or even seven-year plan.  Those students who love their college years so much, that they simply never want to leave those glory days.  Some maximize the financial aid packages available to them, some have generous families, and others just find a way to stick around their hopeful alma mater.

What few tend to talk about is, for most public colleges and universities, these professional students are big business.  Most state institutions of higher education receive public support based on enrollment numbers.  So while a typical student who graduates in the expected four years would could for four “credits” when it comes to state dollars, that student on the six-year plan counts for six.  Assuming new student enrollment numbers (both freshmen and transfers) remain steady, or increase, every year, those who stick around for an extra year or three can become a financial boon to the institution at which they are camping out.  For some institutions, there is little incentive to see students actually graduate.  As long as they remain enrolled, they are cherished.
But how do such “long-term” learning plans meet with our current calls for educational return on investment, plans to boost the number of U.S. postsecondary degreeholders, or expectations that today’s college students will fill the workforce needs of tomorrow?  Unfortunately, they often don’t.  Many students who extend their stays don’t graduate, leaving with more than a half-decade of experience and memories, but no degree to show for it.  As the nation looks to measure the effectiveness of states and their high schools based on our ability to graduate students from secondary school in four years (those who gain a diploma four years after starting ninth grade), we have few rubrics to really measure the effectiveness of postsecondary education.
Until now.
Over at USA Today, Mary Beth Marklein reports on a growing trend to link college graduation to college funding.  It seems like a simple idea long overdue.  Higher education spending coming from state government would be tied to the number of students graduating (or at least the number completing courses).  The desire is results.  If states are going to support public colleges and universities, they want their own ROI.  They want assurances that those taxpayer dollars are resulting in degree holders prepared to hold the jobs and contribute to the economy of the state that has been subsidizing their education for the past four or more years.
USA Today spotlights a couple of states that are looking to break new ground on college funding ROI, including:
* Ohio, which seeks to tie 100 percent of funding to “course and degree completion”
* Indiana, which is traveling a similar path to Ohio
* Louisiana, looking to tie 25 percent of funding to “student success”
* Missouri, basing finance for allied health and other programs on how students do on licensing exams
* Washington, funding community and technical colleges based on specific student performance hurdles
This is not a new trend, but it is taking on greater intensity.  More than half of states have tried such ROI measures over the last three decades.  Nearly half of those who have tried it have abandoned it.  Some of the best results can be seen in states such as Florida, where tough ROI measures have actually resulted in a 43 percent increase in graduation rates and an 18 percent increase in enrollment for the Sunshine State’s community colleges over the last decade.
In the coming years, we are likely to see more states looking to go down the path of the Buckeye State, particularly if Ohio successfully implements it 100-percent funding plan.  Just a few months ago, President Obama set a national goal that the United States would have the highest percentage of postsecondary degree holders in the world by the year 2020.  And the feds are looking to invest $2.5 billion into efforts to boost college completion rates.  If we are going to hit those goals, we need to turn out significantly more college graduates.  To do so, we need to transform college goers into college completers.  And to do that, we need to hold our institutions of higher education accountable (particularly since placing responsibility solely with the students has so far done us little good).
These are bold moves by state legislatures and state higher education boards.  Accountability is a tough issue, particularly when there are so many “reasons” why one fails to complete a degree path.  ROI is a tough issue, particularly with so many that believe the simple pursuit of higher education is the reward itself.  College graduation rates are a tough issue, particularly when we so struggle nationally with our ability to improve high school graduation and college-going rates, particularly with historically disadvantaged students.
But the current times call for bold moves.  There is no question that postsecondary education is quickly becoming a non-negotiable for economic success in the 21st century.  We also know that employers value the degree, and not simply the attendance record, when it comes to evaluating a potential job candidate’s educational background.  If we view state investment in higher education as an investment in strengthening the state’s economy and the state’s future, such linkages between funding and completion make sense.  Taxpayers are subsidizing these education experiences.  They have a right to demand some return on that investment.  And we all should have the expectation that when our sibling or child or spouse enrolls in postsecondary education (be it a two- or four-year institution) the ultimate goal is securing a diploma.  That’s the goal.  We should measure against it.

Presidential Commencement in the Desert

Eduflack Achievement gap, Arne Duncan, higher ed, NAEP, Obama, Workforce

In recent weeks, there has been a great deal of discussion and debate about President Obama’s decision to speak at graduation festivities at the University of Notre Dame.  But little had been said about yesterday’s presidential commencement address at Arizona State University.  Yes, there was some initial discussion about ASU’s decision not to award Obama the traditional honorary degree (apparently, ASU’s policy is that one is recognized for their full lifetime body of work, and the President of the United States still has to prove himself and still has other career chapters ahead of him), but that’s been about it.  But few are discussing what’s behind the curtain on last night’s address in Tempe.

As to be expected, the President did a fine rhetorical job in the desert.  He used the moment to inspire, urging students to pursue their passions and make a difference.  He made light of the honorary degree scuffle.  And he did what one would expect from a President in what will become the core of a relatively standard graduation address he will deliver two to three times a year, for the next four to eight years.  USA Today has a good article on the graduation here,  The Arizona Republic provides us the local view here.
We expect such speeches to be motivational, and not wake-up calls.  We want to applaud achievements, inspiring graduates to make a difference in their communities, not dwell on the fact that so few of those ASU grads are now leaving campus with actual jobs in hand.  We don’t want to talk about the economic realities around us, particularly with so many people leaving the last four, five, or six years of college with five or sic figures of debt to worry about in a time where job prospects for new college grads are at some of their weakest levels.
But one does have to wonder how Arizona State University was selected as Obama’s only address to a public university this spring, and the first time a sitting president has ever participated in ASU’s commencement ceremony.  The decision is particularly vexing when we look at the Administration’s rhetoric on student achievement and performance, and take a second look at the Grand Canyon State and the Sun Devils in particular.
The general consensus among educators is the eighth grade NAEP reading score is the best harbinger of student success.  It provides a better longitudinal view that the fourth grade scores, and it provides a more complete picture than the scores of 17-year-olds, particularly recognizing that so many students have dropped out of high school before taking those 11th grade NAEP reading exams.  Knowing that the vast majority of ASU students are coming from the state of Arizona, how do Arizonans do on 8th grade NAEP reading?  Only 24 percent of Arizona 8th graders score proficient or better on our Nation’s Report Card when it comes to reading.  That’s good enough to rank 42nd out of 50 states.  Hardly the beacon of college preparatory hope we would want to honor with the merriment of commencement commencing.  
But the numbers are even more startling when one looks at the success of ASU students, at least in terms of their ability to earn that sheepskin in the first place.  We often talk about the high school graduation rates, the need to measure success based on a four-year yardstick (one’s ability to graduate high school four years after starting ninth grade).  We then joke about the five- or six-year plan that many postsecondary students choose to employ during their college years.  Surely, just about anyone can earn that diploma after spending six years in search of 120 credits, right?
Actually, no.  The folks over at Education Trust has spent a lot of time and effort taking a look the postsecondary numbers through their College Results initiative.  They even break down the numbers so one can compare a school like ASU with other peer institutions (as, to be fair, not everyone is competing with Princeton or Stanford).  What did EdTrust find?  In its peer group, Arizona State is the largest institution, in terms of enrollment, yet it has the lowest six-year graduation rate.  Only 56 percent of ASU students graduate six years after enrolling.  Even more disturbing, only 46 percent of minority students end up leaving ASU with that diploma.
When you disaggregate the numbers even further, you see that half of Hispanic students who enroll at ASU graduate within six years.  For African Americans, that number drops to 42 percent.  For Native Americans, an important population in Arizona, the figure is a disappointing 25 percent.  
So when Eduflack looks at these numbers, one has to ask, from a purely spotlight perspective, why ASU and not Louisiana State University (57% grad overall and 51% minority grad), or University of Central Florida (58% and 53%, respectively), or Michigan State (with a 74% overall grad rate and 54% African American and Native American grad rates and 58% Hispanic)?  It is even more puzzling when you see Florida and Michigan, at least, also outperforming Arizona on that important NAEP measure.
I don’t doubt there were good reasons to head to Tempe this week.  Nor do I want to deny the more than half of students who have persevered for the last four to six years and earned their degree from hearing the President and reflecting and rejoicing in their accomplishment.  They earned a college degree, and that should be applauded, regardless of the circumstances around them.
But in this era of economic worry and global competitiveness, this time of student achievement and school innovation, the President missed a golden opportunity to talk about those who were not let into the party.  He missed the chance to talk about the 76 percent of Arizonans who are not provided an equal chance to graduate from high school or attend institutions like Arizona State because they cannot read at a proficient level.  He missed the opportunity to call on the state and the institution to do something about the 44 percent of students, and the 54 percent of minority students, who don’t make it to the final ceremony.  He missed the chance to celebrate those who have achieved, but remind all of those who were left behind and urge us all to redouble our commitment to reducing the pool of close but no cigars.
Earlier this year, President Obama pledged that, by 2020, the United States would have the highest percentage of college graduates on the planet.  We don’t get there when only six in 10 college freshmen are holding a degree six years later.  And we certainly can’t get there when only four in 10 of historically disadvantaged students are earning the honor.
No, we don’t want to use these commencement addresses to bum out the graduates or bring the crowds down.  It should be a time for optimism, recognition, and congratulation.  But such presidential addresses must be delivered in the context of the world around us.  Let Obama applaud the students at Arizona State and Notre Dame.  But let’s have EdSec Duncan and the team on Maryland Avenue point out the miles we have to go on the issue of postsecondary degree attainment.  Use these addresses to issue a call to arms among both our secondary and postsecondary institutions that they can, should, and must do a better job.  
Fifty-six percent grad rate is a starting point, not an end point.  Schools like ASU should be our reclamation projects, nor our exemplars of best practice.  No offense to Arizo
na State, you just get the spotlight because you won the White House lottery this year.  Next year, such concerns can be raised about future institutions.  But when you get the President speaking about hope and opportunity for your graduates, one has to take a close took at those who failed to don the cap and gown, why they weren’t in the stadium last evening, and what that means for ASU, Arizona, and the nation.  
We know our 21st century economy is going to be driven largely by those holding postsecondary credentials.  Seems we need to hold those postsecondary institutions accountable.  After years of taking student tuition and indulging students on the five- or six-year plan, what are they doing to get all students — particularly those from minority, low-income, or first-generation college going families — across the finish line?  What are institutions like ASU doing to help meet the President’s 2020 degree goal?  And what are we doing if they don’t, or can’t, provide real answers to the question?

STEM, CCs, and Opportunity

Eduflack 21CS, early college, High School, higher ed, STEM, stimulus, technology, Workforce

The power of STEM, science-tech-engineering-math, instruction is virtually limitless.  In our 21st century workforce, we know that all employees need both a common knowledgebase and key skills.  What may have sufficed a few decades ago, or even a few years ago, just does not cut it these days.  If one is to contribute to the economy, one needs an understanding of technology and abilities in critical thinking, teamwork, and problem-solving.  Virtually every new job being created these days requires some form of postsecondary education, those career certificate programs or college degrees that ensure successful students are proficient in core subjects such as math and science.  If one is looking for the entrance to a successful and productive career, these days it is starting with that STEM entrance sign.

Unfortunately, there are often a lot of misperceptions about STEM and its intended audience.  We first think that STEM is only for those seeking to be rocket scientists and brain surgeons.  Untrue.  Good STEM programs are for every student, as all learners benefit from being STEM literate.  We think that STEM is a high school issue.  Untrue.  There are some really successful K-8 STEM efforts (just look at some of the work being done in states like Minnesota).  There are some incredibly successful STEM efforts being undertaken at our institutions of higher education, both for those seeking careers in the STEM fields and those just looking for a leg up in their own individual pursuits.
Perhaps one of the greatest STEM urban legends is the notion that STEM skills and STEM literacy are only concerns for our current students.  As evidenced by today’s USA Today article on laid-off workers heading back to school, nothing could be further from the truth.  Those who have been adversely affected by the economy (which at this point is just about everyone) are now looking to retool and reskill, pursuing new educational opportunities so they can get into new career fields with current job opportunities and significant long-term potential.
Historically, we see this sort of behavior during many of our nation’s economic downturns.  The economy goes south, unemployment rates edge up, and more and more people turn to IHEs — usually our community colleges — to fill the gaps and improve their chances of success.  Sometimes it means acquiring some new skills to complement existing degrees, certificates, and work experience.  Sometimes it means a complete change, with former airline mechanics becoming nurses or bricklayers becoming graphic designers.
Under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, our nation’s giant piggybank for economic stimulus, $1.7 billion is available for adult employment services and training programs.  As USA Today reports, recently displaced workers are looking to tap this aid to take advantage of community college and vocational programs to give them the 21st century skills necessary to secure and succeed in 21st century jobs.
To some, investment in these sorts of vocational education programs is like throwing money down a black hole.  Once and future workers pursue certificates and degrees in a wide range of topics and interests, with little regard for local community economic needs or a true understanding of the employment landscape over the next decade.  We use such funds to pursue personal interests and passions, rather than to truly retool and gain the skills necessary to take a step forward and add a layer of knowledgebase and security to their future.
is it an unfair assumption?  Absolutely.  Over the past few decades our community colleges have done yeoman’s work in providing the sort of retraining programs our workforce needed to remain skilled, knowledgeable, and effective.  As the technology changed, the CCs were there to offer courses in everything from basic computing to complex machinery and technologies.  Some of our best environmental programs are found in CCs.  And we could keep going.
So what does this mean for us now, in 2009?  Put simply, our community colleges are the front lines for effective STEM education.  Those heading back to school are looking for practical skills that will get them back into the workforce and back into jobs with a future.  STEM is the answer.  Those heading back to community colleges are looking for skills that are attractive to employers and needed by their local industries.  STEM is the answer.  And those looking to reskill and retool want to invest their time in courses and programs that represent future opportunities, not the lessons of the past.  STEM is the answer.  As we look at community colleges’ role in the P-20 education continuum, particularly as it related to those re-entering the education gateway, STEM is the answer.
Moving forward, it is essential that we effectively link STEM education, our community colleges, and the students and potential students they are seeking to serve.  How do we do it?  First, we need to strengthen linkages between K-12 and higher education, allowing more current students to see the value and impact of a community college education.  The CCs are not simply for remedial postsecondary courses or as cheaper gateways to a four-year institution.  They offer their own value and their own impact.  These linkages are already being established across the nation, as high schools and community colleges are working together on early colleges and other dual-degree programs, allowing more young people to see the strength, value, and opportunity found on their local community college campuses.  And these linkages often focus on STEM-focused courses.
Second, we need to better link our community colleges with local industry.  We need to do the gap analyses to understand the current employment pipeline and where we may be lacking in skilled employees to fill those new jobs.  What can community college do to help prepare future workers for those future jobs?  We need to better understand our assets.  What programs do our CCs currently offer?  How do they align with employer needs?  How do we build the linkages between the two?  How do we build partnerships so employers use their local CCs for worker training programs, retraining efforts, and as impactful pipelines of skilled future employers?
Most importantly, though, we must continue to strengthen the STEM offerings in our institutions of higher education.  There is simply no getting around it.  STEM literacy is an essential component to gainful employment in the 21st century.  Today’s — and tomorrow’s — workers must think differently, work smartly, and adapt to the ever-changing environment around them.  That requires a core understanding of the math, science, and technology that does into even the most unlikely of STEM jobs.  That requires the 21CS that often accompany an effective STEM education.  Even those looking to work alongside their fathers and grandfathers on the assembly line or at the construction site require a STEM literacy that was never required of generations past.  A union card is no longer enough for some jobs.  STEM proficiency needs to accompany that union bug if our workers are going to compete, innovate, and outperform industry competitors around the globe.
Kudos to those who have already recognized that, those employees or the recently laid off who are already turning to schools and vocational programs to better equip them for the opportunities of the future.  Kudos to community colleges and other IHEs who are meeting the challenge and providing relevant, effective programs that align with industry needs and expectations.  And kudos to those who see that STEM is at the heart of the future of both.
Eduflack doesn’t seek to evangelize for S
TEM (at least not all of the time), but sometimes we need to sing loudly from the STEM hymnal.  Today’s students need STEM as part of their educational pathway, providing the knowledge and skills they need both in school and in career.  Today’s employees need STEM to stay relevant and adaptable to a changing economy.  And today’s employers need STEM to ensure they current and future workforce possess the skills to contribute to a thriving, growth-focused economy.  STEM education is at the heart of all of it.  We just need to ensure that community colleges and industry keep the blood pumping.
   

Actually Getting Kids to College, or Just Talking About It?

Eduflack Achievement gap, ACT, early college, High School, higher ed, Parents, PR, Students

By now, Eduflack readers know two evident truths about successful communications.  The first is we must raise awareness about the problem and what people know about it.  The second is we must drive audiences to action, getting them to change their behaviors to fix said problem.  It is modern-day advocacy.  Being informed is no longer enough.  If we aren’t taking the action steps to improve student achievement, then any “PR effort” isn’t worth its salt.

For years now, we’ve screamed from the rooftops that each and every child in the United States required a college degree.  The U.S. Department of Education said that 90 percent of new jobs demanded some form of postsecondary education.  We’ve talked about the problems of dropout factories and business’ need for a college-educated workforce.  We’ve discussed 21st century skills and the learning needs one acquires after high school.
Earlier this week, the KnowHow2Go campaign released new public survey information on its efforts to boost public awareness of its efforts to inform eighth to 10th graders on the need for college.  The results include:
* More than one-third (35 percent) of students say they are regularly taking steps to prepare for college (up from 26 percent in 2007)
* Nine in 10 students (91 percent) have spoken to an adult about college prep, up from 80 percent
* Six in 10 students (63 percent) have seen or heard of KnowHow2Go and its advertising campaign
* Eight in 10 students (81 percent) said they were familiar with the courses needed for college, up from 70 percent two years ago
The data points are interesting, don’t get me wrong, but what do they really tell us?  As we are improving our ability to inform students, are we actually changing student behaviors?  Unfortunately, we just don’t know.  This data seems to raise just as many questions as it provides answers.
One-third of students are taking steps to prepare to college.  Interestingly, one-third of high school students will go on to college.  And one-third have gone on to college for decades.  What does that mean?  In 2007, those students who were likely going on to college didn’t know they were taking the steps necessary to get there.  So now those same students know they are asking the right questions and getting the right information.  But what are we doing for the two-thirds of ninth graders who will never go on to college?  What questions are they asking?  What steps are they taking?  And why aren’t they doing what it takes to prepare for postsecondary education?
Ninety percent of students have spoken to an adult about college.  What about that remaining 10 percent?  What are they talking about?  Who are they talking to?  And how are we defining an adult?  Based on my previous research with high school students on whether or not they go on to college, the vast majority of students say they trust their parents first and foremost when it comes to college decisions..  Guidance counselors usually rank near the bottom of adults when it comes to those voices they value.  So are these students talking to parents and trusted adults, those they may actually listen to, or are they talking to the guidance counselors and such that they will immediately discount?
Eight in 10 students are now familiar with the courses needed for college.  But are they taking them?  Again, information is great, but are students acting on the information?  Are they enrolling in higher level science and math classes?  Are they taking dual-credit opportunities?  Are they taking the ACT or SAT test?  Are they passing their state proficiency exams? It is one thing to say we know what we need to do.  It is something completely different to actually do it.
What do we know?  We know that only a third of today’s ninth graders will go on to postsecondary education.  We know that of those who enter college, more than half are unprepared for college-level work, evidenced by the high numbers of students requiring remedial math and ELA courses.  We know that a third of students are still dropping out of high school, and those numbers reach almost 50 percent in our African-American and Hispanic populations.  We know that drop-out factories are still far-too-prominent in too many of our urban centers.
I give KnowHow2Go credit for boosting awareness of the issue.  Based on their data, their message is getting out there and students are more aware of the issues (at least those students who are participating in the survey).  But how is that awareness being used to actually change public behavior?  How do we use that awareness to boost high school graduation rates?  How do we use it to close the achievement gap?  How do we use it to actually boost the college-going rate, particularly among minority and low-income students?  How do we get more students to pursue the multiple pathways of postsecondary education?  How do we move this newly acquired information into real action that is improving student achievement and preparedness for the opportunities in the 21st century workforce.
Growing up, GI Joe taught Eduflack (and many others) that knowing was half the battle.  He was right.  KnowHow2Go has done a good job of informing students of the questions they need to ask and the issues they need to think about.  But what are they doing with that information?  Success only comes when we can show more students are actually going to college.  Success only comes when we demonstrate that students are actually taking the courses they need to go on to college.  Success only comes when we have tangible results to show for it, real results tied to grad rates, college preparedness, and the number of students gaining postsecondary degrees.  Success only comes when we fight that other half of the battle.  And far too many of us still need to gear up for that fight. 

Jumping Into the Higher Ed News Debate

Eduflack higher ed, PR, technology

In my post this AM on communicating in a new education paradigm, I laid out the belief that the launch of Inside Higher Education was a real game changer for education, particularly higher education, reporting.  Why?  It captured news from campuses across the nation.  It spotlighted local higher ed coverage.  It delivered them to a wide range of email inboxes across the nation.  And it did so for free.

This was not intended as a slam on the Chronicle of Higher Education.  I have college friends who have written or currently write for the Chronicle.  It is one of the top print publications in the industry, one that I grew up reading (and you wondered how exciting the life of a son of a college president is).  Its unique web visitors and print readership should be envied by most publications.  I’ll applaud the Chronicle for being one of the first newspapers to have a daily web presence (they cite 1995.  For the record, I helped get The Cavalier Daily, the University of Virginia’s independent student newspaper, online five days a week in 1994).  And I’ll credit them for their daily email news briefing, Academe Today, for delivering the top news the Chronicle’s primary readership look for.
What catches me, though, are the restrictions on its website.  We’ve gotten spoiled in today’s 24-7 information environment.  We want it all, and we don’t want to pay for it.  When I visit a website, I expect to get all of the information that I can access.  I’m prepared to offer up my email address and vitals for access, as that is the price of doing business.  Yes, the Chronicle offers free access to some information on its site, namely its blog postings.  But the simple fact remains that the average reader cannot access the majority of headlines posted on the Chronicle website without a paid subscription.  When i look at the top stories on the home page (today, for instance, I know foreign graduates are losing job offers because of the stimulus package, but I don’t know how or why), I look so longingly, knowing that a click will only get me the lede paragraph, and the rest of the story is denied me without a Chronicle account and a paid subscription (or an online pass).  Even after all these years, the Chronicle is a bit of an online tease, at least for those who aren’t willing to pay to play.
I don’t fault the Chronicle for its business model.  It has found a market that is willing to pay for its content, clearly recognizing that the information available is worth the price.  In fact, there are colleges and universities that are willing to buy the licenses to provide full access to content to each and every person on their campuses.  And I’m particularly fond of the Chronicle’s old print ads showing those college presidents clipping and dog earing articles from a publication that is seen as a “bible” in their industry.  It is a high-quality pub with a loyal readership.
But it is still catching up to the times.  If I go to the homepage of the New York Times or Washington Post or Wall Street Journal — industry leaders all — I expect to gain access to the latest articles promoted on their homepage.  Those that have tried to charge for content have had to reverse course.  No, I don’t expect full access to the archives and may even be willing to pay for content if I believe it to be valuable.  But I want access to more than the first paragraph of the latest news.  And I’m not the only one.
No, Inside Higher Ed didn’t change higher education journalism.  But it did change the way we viewed higher education journalism (as I noted this morning).  It opened such information up to the masses (or at least those interested in such topics).  It raised the profile of higher education issues beyond those in academe.  And, in the end, it has made the Chronicle a better publication, as it has broadened its reach, expanded its options, and improved its quality.  It’s a win-win, particularly for those who are paid subscribers to the Chronicle.  

Improving Teacher Training Efforts Inside or Outside the Norm?

Eduflack Achievement gap, higher ed, HQT, PD, Teacher Education

A few weeks ago on Twitter (eduflack, for those looking to follow), I posed what I thought was an interesting question.  Does reform and improvement of our teacher preparation programs need to be led inside or outside the norm?  Or in simpler terms, can we look to our schools of education to make the necessary changes, or does it require new thinking from alternative certification programs and innovation-minded groups or individuals to lead the sort of sea change we need to boost the quality and outcomes of all teachers in the classroom?

The question led to my call for a Flexner-style Commission to study the current state of teacher education.  blog.eduflack.com/2009/03/09/the-future-of-teacher-ed.aspx  The premise is simple.  We need someone to go in and evaluate the good, the bad, and the downright ugly when it comes to teacher preparation.  What are best practices?  How is what’s proven effective making its way into the classroom?  Who is doing it right?  Who is doing it wrong?  What voices will lead the transformation moving forward, and what calls will try to defend a status quo that is clearly broken.
That latter point is one that bears repeating.  There are real problems in the across-the-board quality of teacher preparation in the United States.  Some alternative routes are mom-and-pop shops that do a quick dash and dump into the school districts with nary a concern for the coursework or clinical training necessary to prepare a student for the challenges of leading a classroom.  Some online programs seek to simply offer quick and cheap degrees to meet district staffing needs, with little concern for the quality of the instruction or the real-life preparedness of the students they only meet virtually and through their bank accounts.  Too many traditional teacher ed programs have watered down their programs to serve the lowest common denominator, seeking to simply provide warm bodies to hard-to-staff schools that have lost sight of much the pedagogical training and ongoing support aspiring and new teachers need to adjust to life in a classroom.  And programs on both sides of the fence simply are putting underprepared educators in the most challenging of classrooms, figuring any teacher, no matter how poorly prepared, is better than no teacher at all.
Clearly, the current model is broken, or at least in need of some serious triage.  At the same time, we have a growing body of evidence regarding the instruction, training, support, and ongoing professional development that teacher educators should impart on the next generation of the molders of student minds.
Recently, Mathematica completed an evaluation on alternative teacher pathways for the Institute of Education Sciences (IES).  The study found that new teachers from alternative routes were essentially no worse that teachers from traditional routes, at least in those schools they studied (a finding that the alt cert community, and likely IES, was hoping for).  The study itself went over like a lead balloon, with few noticing it or reporting on it.  Rightfully so.  It should not be news that Eduflack has some major issues with the methodology Mathematica used to reach its conclusions and with the narrow eye with which they looked at the results.  
A recent research critique completed by NYU’s Sean Corcoran and Columbia’s Jennifer Jennings pulls back the curtain on all that was wrong with the Mathematica approach, methodology, and interpretation of the results.  Their full tome can be found at EPIC (University of Colorado, Boulder) and EPRU’s (Arizona State University) joint website at: epicpolicy.org/thinktank/review-evaluation-of-teachers.  
Corcoran and Jennings’ work echoes similar critiques that have already been posted by a range of folks, including the Center for Teacher Quality’s Barnett Berry on his blog — teachingquality.typepad.com.  
What did they find?
* None of the teacher studied had the teacher prep generally required of new teachers nationally (because Mathematica only looked at a handful of hard-to-staff schools that would gladly take any warm or lukewarm body willing to sit at the big desk.
* There is a clear difference in the impact of a teacher from a high-coursework prep program and a low-coursework prep program.  Even among alt cert providers themselves, the high courseworkers were most able to do the job.
* Teachers coming from low-coursework alternative programs actually decreased study achievement.  Yes, the data showed that kids in the classroom of ill-trained, ill-prepared teachers actually saw their student performance decline, while teachers from traditional routes either held the line or posted some very, very, very modest gains.
So what do we do with all of this information?  How do we use it to build a better teacher education mousetrap?  Some of the answers can be found with Stanford’s Linda Darling-Hammond, who looked at both the Mathematica research and data on effective teacher prep in places like North Carolina and New York City to help identify the necessary qualities of effective teacher training programs.  Her research can be found here: edpolicy.stanford.edu/pages/pubs/pub_docs/mathematica_policy_brief.pdf.  
Darling-Hammond’s work offers the clearest view on how the confluence of research on teacher preparation can be moved into policy that aligns with current federal priorities to more effectively train, support, demand, and reward good teaching in the schools.  It reminds us of the checklist that should go into evaluating teacher prep programs.  Among her toplines:
* Prospective teachers must learn specific practices and apply them in clinical experiences;
* Prospects need sufficient coursework in content areas (such as math and reading) and the methods of teaching them (so both the content and the pedagogy); and
* Teachers-in-training need to be well-aware of the local district curriculum and how their pre-service education prepares them to meet expectations and achieve expected outcomes;
We also know that those prospects most like to succeed in the classroom are certified in the specific areas they teach, have higher-than-average scores on the teacher licensing test, and graduate from a competitive college.
(Full disclosure, Eduflack works with the good folks at EPIC, including on the announcement of the Corcoran/Jennings piece and has counseled Darling-Hammond, off and on, for a decade now.  Yes, fans, you’ve heard that right, this champion of evidence base and the need for reform has worked with LDH since her days as head of NCTAF.  And despite the urban legend, she is far more of the reformer and innovator than most in the field and that virtually anyone gives her credit for, if you can stand my brief editorial.)
None of this is rocket science.  But delivering it seems to be the challenge, particularly in our urban centers where we are hungry for anyone, and I mean just about anyone, to lead a classroom in an underperforming, hard-to-staff classroom.
What do we do with all of this?  First, the Highly Qualified Teacher provisions in NCLB are correct.  Teachers should be trained in the content matter they are to teach and need to be certified in that subject matter.  There is no replacement for several years of rich, content-based coursework in the subject matter itself.  Those advocates for including Effective in the HQT provisions (including Eduflack) are right as well.  We need
to measure a teacher, in part, by how effective they are.  And the straightest path to measuring that effectiveness is student performance (even the Mathematica study tells us that).  And then there is that which we know instinctually — effective teachers require clinical training and time in the classroom before they are tossed in the deep end.  They need mentors and in-school supports that can help them work through the problems and apply their training to real classrooms.  And they need ongoing, content-based, embedded professional development for the rest of their careers, so they are continually improving an constantly adapting to the changing challenges and opportunities of the modern day classroom and student.
It is just pure common sense.  But as we know from far too many life experiences, some folks just don’t have (or use) the common sense they are born with.  Do our ed schools, in the collective sense, need improvement?  You betcha.  Are alternative pathways the solution for struggling schools?  No, there is no data to make that leap.  Do we know what it takes to train an effective teacher?  Of course we do.  Are we applying it universally in our teacher preparation programs, traditional or alternative?  Not even close.
At some point, the war between traditional and alt cert needs to come to an end.  There will always be a need and a demand for niche programs that can fill specific needs in certain schools or communities.  That’s where good alt cert programs can play their part.  But if we are going to truly reform and improve the quality and results of public education in the United States, change, at scale, can only begin with our schools of education.  We need to do this across the board, ensuring that the new teachers going into our urban centers and so-called dropout factories receive the same level of high-quality content and pedagogical learning and training as those entering our well-funded suburban K-12 schools.  Good teacher training is good teacher training.  Period.  We shouldn’t have different levels, particularly when it comes to those poor and minority students with whom we are trying to close the achievement gap.  
“Good enough for …” should never be a phrase uttered when identifying and hiring teachers in hard-to-staff schools.  Every student deserves the best prepared, the best trained, and the best equipped teachers.  The last thing they need is to settle for a teacher deemed “good enough” for their struggling school or declining community.  That sort of bigotry has gotten us into the achievement problems we still can’t pull out of.
    

The Future of Teacher Ed?

Eduflack AYP, early childhood education, higher ed, Teacher Education

What does it take to train a better, more effective teacher?  If you listen to the experts, a great deal.  It requires significant knowledge in the subject matter.  Strong training in effective teaching methods.  Clinical training, including that as student teacher working under a strong, veteran teacher.  Ongoing mentoring and support, both during pre-service training and once one enters the classroom for the first time.  Teaching is not for the timid or the feint of heart.  Success is the classroom requires a great deal of preparation — prep in the content, the pedagogy, the research, and how to use it all effectively.  And then, of course, there is how one successfully relates with and leads the students in the classroom and continuous, content-based professional development.

No one ever said that teaching, or teacher preparation, is easy.  There is a lot involved in effective teacher training.  There should be, when we recognize just how much is at stake.  After all, it is just the future of our nation hanging in the balance.
We also recognize that most school districts get their teachers trained close to home.  They typically come from local, in-state teachers colleges and public universities.  All too frequently, we hear that those drawn into undergraduate education programs are some of our lower-performing students.  And we unfortunately know that those traditional teacher education programs that serve some of our lowest-performing, hard-to-staff schools are among our weakest, requiring less coursework, no clinical training, and lower expectations than those programs that may be serving better-performing school districts in the suburbs?
This is the way it was, and the way it is.  And many figure it is the way it will always be.  That’s what makes the University of the District of Columbia (our nation’s capital’s public IHE) all the more interesting.  In this morning’s Washington Post, UDC announces plans to shutter its undergraduate education program.  Why?  Too low graduation rates.  Too few prospective teachers passing their praxis,  Too little impact.  The full story can be found here — www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/08/AR2009030801641.html?hpid=moreheadlines.  
The statistics at UDC require a close look.  Only 7 to 8 percent of those students enrolled in the program graduate within six years of starting it.  The early childhood education major — with 150 students — yields only four to six graduates a year.  Enrollment is down overall.  Some years, the special education major yields no graduates at all.  
UDC hopes to fix the problem by focusing on graduate education programs, providing current and aspiring teachers master’s and doctoral programs that build on their undergraduate educations.  Current undergraduate advocates blame the problems on a praxis process that tests math proficiency after one’s sophomore year (“we’re not math educators”) and on a culturally biased system that favors white students pursuing public education careers, among other excuses.
But the UDC discussion in WaPo fails to ask a few important questions.  How many UDC graduates are taking teaching jobs in DC Public Schools?  And once those graduates begin teaching careers, how are they doing?  How are their students performing?  How are they leading their classrooms?  Are they moving the needle?  But we know all too well that such results-based questions are frowned on by some in education. 
Unfortunately, the situation at UDC is not an isolated incident.  There are teacher training programs across the nation that are not providing our prospective teachers the knowledgebase and skills they need to succeed.  There are programs, particularly those that serve as pipelines into our inner-city schools, that fail to provide the content knowledge, pedagogy, and clinical training teacher need to succeed.  There are those that mean well, but just are unable to hit the mark when it comes to expectations, needs, and demands of the 21st century classroom.
For quite some time now, Eduflack has believed that the teacher education community is in dire need of a Flexner-style study of our teacher training programs.  For those unaware, back at the start of the 20th century, the Carnegie Foundation launched the Flexner Commission to study the quality and impact of our nation’s medical training programs.  Flexner’s findings were startling — so many of those programs training our future medical doctors were a disaster, with no core curricular tenets and no quality or research behind them.  The findings revolutionized medical education.  A vast majority of medical colleges across the nation had their doors closed for good.  Those that remained bolstered their quality, turning out a better doctor to meet the growing medical needs of our industrialized nation.
Isn’t it time for such an approach in teacher education?  Don’t we need a comprehensive study of our teacher training programs, one that focuses on how we crosswalk the latest in teacher educator research with current curricula, ensure that teacher training programs are empowering our teachers with research-based instructional strategies, require clinical hours, build mentoring and support networks, use data in both instruction and intervention, and ensure graduates align with both the content and skill needs of the communities and states they are serving?  Of course we do.  
There is much debate these days between how alternative teacher training programs stack up to the traditional teaching pathways.  This discussion has picked up steam because of far too many traditional programs that simply are not up to par.  It’s not that traditional teacher ed doesn’t work, its that too many institutions are not providing the strongest program possible.  And important step to remedying this is to improve our schools and departments of education.  By improving quality — both of instruction and student — we improve our schools.  And when we improve our schools, we boost our children’s chance to succeed.
There is no doubt the teacher is the heart and soul of a school.  Getting a good teacher should not be a game of educational roulette, depending on the location of the table and how much money is in your pocket.  We should never have situations like we did a decade ago in Massachusetts, where upwards of half the students graduating from some of the state’s public teachers colleges were failing the praxis after graduating from college.  if a prospective teacher graduates from an accredited institution of higher education, we should have no doubt that they are equipped with the knowledgebase, skills, and ability to succeed in virtually any classroom with virtually any kids.
A sea change is coming in teacher education.  We are investing too much in teacher supports, pipeline creation, instructional development, and effective modeling of best practices necessary to improve teacher practice.  The stakes are just too high for us to fail.  We need to ensure that every product of a traditional teacher education program is equipped to lead the classroom, knows what she is getting into, and has the support and encourage to succeed, particularly in the early years.  A Flexner Commission for Teacher Education may be just what is needed if we are to move from a collection of UDC situations to the establishment of centers of teacher training excellence throughout the nation.
    

Flagship University Vs. Local College

Eduflack higher ed, Students

Across the nation, states have established flagship public universities to attract the nation’s best and brightest.  These institutions bring in the top faculty, establish academic centers of excellence, secure significant federal dollars in R&D, and recruit the top students in the nation.  All of this is done to ensure they can effectively compete with both the top public and private institutions, demonstrating a statewide commitment to education, innovation, and results.

These flagship institutions usually work in partnership with a network of public universities to ensure that the academic needs of the state are effectively met.  Regional demands, areas of specialty, and the downright luck of the draw ultimately determine which students end up where.  These variations allow institutions to build diverse student populations, diverse in terms of race, socioeconomic status, geography, interests, and backgrounds.
No university can serve every student.  There is a reason why the admission process is competitive, particularly for these flagship publics.  That’s what make them so desirable.  That’s what puts them at the top of the college rankings.  That’s what ensures the success of their graduates.  That’s what makes them truly competitive, impactful institutions.
And then legislators have to step in and try to screw it up.  Case in point — Virginia legislators and their most recent assault on Eduflack’s alma mater, the University of Virginia.  U.Va. is one of those flagship public universities, regularly rated the top public university in the nation.  Currently, 33 percent of U.Va.’s students come from out of state (a number not out of line with other leading public universities).  These out-of-state students often turn down offers from top private institutions — including the Ivies — to attend Mr. Jefferson’s University.  And they pay handsomely for it, with tuition far exceeding the cost of actually educating them (some estimating that they pay double the actual cost of the education received, to help subsidize the cost of educating in-state students).
Apparently, some believe the enrollment of out-of-staters is unfair to Virginia residents who do not get into U.Va., and must instead settle for Virginia Tech, James Madison, George Mason, and other Virginia state universities.  So much so that legislators are now seeking to halve the number of out-of-state students at institutions like U.Va. to make more spots available to in-state students.  Fellow U.Va./Cavalier Daily alum and WaPo reporter Anita Kumar has the full story this morning — www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/23/AR2009022302641.html?hpid=topnews  
I can understand the frustration students have not getting into their first choice college.  You work hard (or mostly hard) for four years of high school.  You get stellar grades.  You do well on the SAT or ACT.  You believe the world should be your oyster.  You believe you are entitled to go to the college of your choice, particularly if it is an in-state school.
And it is logical for an uninformed state legislator to see the reasoning in that logic, and call for the state to slash the number of out-of-state students and offer more slots to in-state student.  Logical, that is, until you really get in under the hood of how institutions like U.Va. operate.  
Currently, the University of Virginia receives less than eight percent of its operating expenses from the state.  That means those legislators are providing fewer than eight cents on the education dollar to provide a University of Virginia education.  The rest of the funds are provided through tuition (a disproportionate amount coming from those “despised” out-of-state students), donations from alumni (a great number of whom were once those out-of-state students), and other funding sources.  
I’ll admit it, I was one of those dreaded out-of-state students at Mr. Jefferson’s University.  As a graduate of the public schools in West Virginia, i found U.Va. to be the ideal college for me the first moment I set foot on grounds, offering opportunities I simply couldn’t find in my home state.  I ultimately chose it over Princeton University, buying into everything about the academical village.  I watched as costs rose from 113% of my actual education my first year to well over 150% by fourth year.  These were during the harshest of SCHEV battles, and it made me appreciate what I was getting even more.  So this is personal for Eduflack.
If legislators want to deny out-of-state students, that is definitely their prerogative.  But they need to be prepared for the impact.  Slashing out-of-state students means a significant cut in operating costs, particularly if it is not offset by real increases in in-state tuition (and yes, if you want to keep academic standards and faculty, and the state can’t increase its support, the only choice is tuition increases.  Gone will be the times where you can just jack up out-of-state rates to make up the difference).  Alums like me will likely choose to reduce their contributions to the College Fund and other operating funds, believing that students like them are no longer being served by the institution.  And yes, U.Va. will quickly drop in the national rankings, due to lower SAT scores, lower budgets, and lower recognition from peer institutions.  Don’t believe me?  Just take a look at how the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill fell in the rankings after it capped out-of-state enrollments.
Personally, I would love to see U.Va. President John Casteen counter with an offer to refuse the 7-plus percent of funding coming in from the state, ridding the institution of many of the oversight and red tape that comes from the Commonwealth.  Of course, U.Va. would still remain a public flagship, but it would also exert its independence and leadership in higher education.  It would definitely be a Jeffersonian thing to do.
But I am also concerned with the larger implications of targeting U.Va.  The University is an easy target, based on its elitist perceptions, it prominent image, and its sizable budgets.  But it is far from being the largest public university in Virginia.  It may be flagship, but it relatively modest when it comes to institutional size, both by in-state and out-of-state comparisons.  Yes, it had a clear target on its back during those SCHEV years and its battles with Governor Wilder, and it remains a target today, particularly as it is in the middle of a highly ambitious $3 billion capital campaign.
These legislative “considerations” create the impression that public education at Virginia Tech or George Mason or William & Mary or VCU is somehow lacking by comparison.  Stating that a student couldn’t get in to U.Va. and had to “settle” for another public university is a slap at the number of fine public institutions in Virginia.  We should be recognizing the uniqueness of our institutions and identifying regional centers of excellence that allow each of our major universities to shine.  Not every Virginian needs to spend four years in C-Ville to succeed.  And in many cases, better educations and better opportunities can be found across the network of Virginia higher education.
More importantly, though, such legislative interventions put us down a dangerously slippery slope.  With U.Va., the issue is that some students in Northern Virginia  — home to some of the nation’s top high schools and competitive students —  don’t gain admission into the University.  Parents and kids alike believe that is unfair, and blame lack of admittance on those out-of-state students.  Even if those out-of-state students have higher grades, higher test s
cores, and stronger resumes, they are taking slots from over-achievers in NoVa.
What happens when U.Va. reduces its out-of-state pool, and we turn our attention to the disproportionate number of in-state students coming from Northern Virginia.  Do we need special intercessions to increase enrollment of students from Southwest Virginia or Norfolk or Richmond?  Will NoVa students simply become the next generation of those dreaded out-of-state students?  It isn’t as silly as it may sound.
But I greatly digress.  The greatness of public flagship universities is the diversity of its students.  Such diversity prepares students for life after college, challenging them to work harder and do better.  And that diversity includes students from other states and other nations.  If we are to sustain truly excellent higher education in Virginia, we should be raising standards and asking more of our students.  The question shouldn’t be how to reduce the out-of-state student pool, it should be how do we raise in-state student achievement and performance so our residents are outperforming those kids from New Jersey and Pennsylvania that  we seem so fearful of.  We should be doing better, not changing the game to make our standards look better than those next to us.