Pedagogue Blog

Matthew Lynch published in Education Leadership

Want great teachers? There’s no one-size-fits-all solution

Gerald K. LeTendre, Pennsylvania State University

Most of us know the difference a good teacher makes in the life of a child. Many global institutions working to improve access to education, such as the United Nations, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and Education International agree that “teacher quality” is the critical element in whether or not an educational system succeeds.

The United Nations has even called for

“allocating the best teachers to the most challenging parts of a country; and providing teachers with the right mix of government incentives to remain in the profession and ensure all children are learning, regardless of their circumstances.”

It is clear we need good teachers, but just what makes for “teacher quality”? And can quality be systematically improved by public policy?

For 30 years I have been studying cultural expectations for what makes a good teacher, beginning with field work in a Tibetan refugee school and an ethnographic study of Japanese and American public schools conducted some years later. More recently, my colleague Alex Wiseman and I have been working on what researchers from around the world consider to be “teacher quality.”

The consensus is that teacher quality entails much more than just the way teachers deliver lessons in the classroom. Teacher quality is strongly affected by a teacher’s working conditions. Teachers working long hours, with low pay, in crowded schools cannot give each individual student the attention they need.

Simply raising the requirements for teacher certification, based on what has worked in some high-performing countries, is not effective. An effective policy requires changes at the level of teacher recruitment, teacher education and long-term support for professional development.

Quality is more than certification

Around the world, more than a dozen nations have recently engaged in efforts to rapidly reform their teacher education and certification systems. The United States, along with nations as diverse as France, India, Japan and Mexico, has sought to improve its educational system by reforming teacher certification or teacher education.

Borrowing from other models is not effective. World Bank Photo Collection, CC BY-NC-ND

Usually, governments try to do this by passing laws that list more requirements for teachers to get their teaching certificate or license. Often they look for models in countries that score well on international achievement tests like Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) or Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) such as Finland, Singapore or South Korea.

It is true that a teacher’s qualifications, experience, personality and instructional skills all play a role in contributing to “quality.” Teacher quality covers what teachers do outside the classroom: how responsive they are to parents and how much time they put into planning lessons or grading papers. Teaching certificates can make a difference toward ensuring teacher quality.

But that does not make for an effective policy. And here’s the problem: One, merely focusing on standards like certification is not enough. Two, the effect can vary by grade level or because of student background – so borrowing models from other countries is not the best strategy.

In the U.S., for example, a key part of the important legislation No Child Left Behind (NCLB) was to put a “qualified teacher” in every classroom. The law emphasized certification, a college degree and content specialization, but failed to identify teachers who knew how to implement reforms and who promoted critical thinking skills in their classrooms.

The most recent law addressing teacher quality, the Every Student Succeeds Act, had to roll back these requirements allowing each state in the U.S. to experiment with different ways to identify quality teaching.

The law allows states to experiment with different types of teacher training academies and with measures of student progress other than just standardized tests.

Goal of American teachers different from Japanese

Moreover, teacher quality is context-dependent: What works in one country may not work in another, or even for another group of students.

Let’s take preschool or early elementary teachers as an example. At this age, many parents would look for teachers who are warm, caring and understand child development. But this, as we know, would change for high school students.

In high school, especially in college preparation courses, students and parents would expect teachers to focus on the lesson. The quality of their teaching would be judged by how well their students score on tests, not how well they are developing socially or emotionally.

Classroom goals vary: First grade English class in session in Japan. Colin Ryder, CC BY-NC-ND

Other than the age of the student, goals of the educational system would matter too. For example, American, Chinese and Japanese teachers take very different approaches to caring for small children and helping them learn basic academic skills. In their book, “Preschool in Three Cultures,” educational anthropologist Joe Tobin and others showed that Japanese preschool teachers are comfortable with classes of 20 students, and tend to tolerate noise and disorder that most American teachers would find uncomfortable.

By contrast, American teachers place great emphasis on one-on-one interactions between children and adults, especially in helping children learn to express their feelings. It is possible that a competent, “high-quality” teacher from Japan would likely feel incompetent and confused in a U.S. school, even if she was fluent in English.

Countries have their own challenges

That’s not all. National conditions impact teacher quality. In some nations, it is a struggle to retain good teachers and distribute them evenly.

For example, many low-income countries face challenges related to poverty, illness and labor shortages that create teacher shortages. Peter Wallet, a researcher at UNESCO’s Institute for Statistics, shows that in many countries, national governments struggle to find enough teachers to staff their schools. He writes:

“The impact of HIV and AIDS in Tanzania for example meant that in 2006 an estimated 45,000 additional teachers were needed to make up for those who had died or left work because of illness.”

The loss of so many teachers places many children at risk of having no access to quality teachers. This basic lack of qualified teachers has been identified by UNESCO as the major barrier to providing access to quality education for all the world’s children.

Even in wealthy nations, sometimes the most qualified teachers are concentrated at certain schools. For example, in the U.S. there is a very unequal distribution of teachers between high- and low-income school districts. Scholar Linda Darling-Hammond sees this unequal access to teachers as one of the greatest challenges facing the U.S.

The point is not to borrow

The fact is that teaching is complex work. Teachers must build trust, increase motivation, research new methods of teaching, engage parents or caregivers and be adept at the social engineering of the classroom so that learning is not disrupted.

Effective teacher policy has to have at least three levels: It must provide clear goals for teacher education and skill development, it must provide “support to local institutions for the education of teachers” and it must address national demands for high quality education.

And in order to develop teacher quality, nations need to do far more that “borrow” policies from high-scoring nations. Nations can learn from one another, but this requires a systematic exchange of information about sets of policies, not just identifying one promising approach.

The International Summit on the Teaching Profession, an annual event that began in New York in 2011, is one example of this kind of global exchange that brings together governments and teacher unions for a dialogue.

To be effective, reforms need to have the support and input of teachers themselves. And, national and global leaders need to create more ways for teachers to provide suggestions, or criticism, of proposed reforms.

The Conversation

Gerald K. LeTendre, Professor of Education, Pennsylvania State University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Equity, Policy & Reform, Teachers

How Did We Get Here? Part VIII: Minority Education in America

This is one of a multi-part series on the progression of education policies in the U.S. from its founding. Click here to see a list of all the posts in this series. 

By Matthew Lynch

The recounting of education to this point has been just one side to the American story. There are, of course, many other parallel versions of exactly how the youth of America have been educated since the founding of the nation. Perhaps the most impactful, and telling, is the history of how black children, during and following slavery, have fit into the educational system.

In the earliest American days, there were no public school options available to black children. Even states that did not have slavery did not offer public education to residents who were of color.  In Southern states deeply entrenched in slave culture, the education of black children was actually illegal. White slave owners believed that literacy and knowledge would threaten the slave system and so laws were passed to forbid it. For example, in South Carolina a sum of one hundred pounds was demanded of anyone caught teaching a slave to read or write. Teacher Margaret Douglass was taught teaching slave children in Norfolk, Virginia and was sent to prison. African American educator and Presbyterian minister John Chavis operated an elite white day school in North Carolina, and a secret school for black children in the evening, despite it being expressly outlawed.

Slavery laws aside, the first 50 years following the signing of the Constitution were not particularly educationally-focused for children of any race. For black children, there were some limited educational options in the form of religious schools. The exact intent of these schools was likely more about conversion than bringing equality to black Americans through education, but the learning scenarios did exist. The French Catholics in Louisiana had schools established for black students as early as the 1600s, and the Pennsylvania Quakers would follow suit in the 1700s. The first African Free School opened in New York City in 1787 with the express mission of educating black children in order to bring them educational equality with their white peers. Like other schools of the time period, the African Free ones began as one-room schoolhouses. Public funds began being funneled to these eventual seven schools in 1824 – an extreme departure at the time.

Public schools for slaves and free black children in larger numbers began to pop up in the 19th century. The state of Maine was the first to grant public school privileges to students of all races in 1820, and Rhode Island voted to do the same in 1843. In 1849, young Sarah C. Roberts sued the city of Boston for not allowing black students like her to be in public schools. She lost her case, but just seven years later the Massachusetts legislature changed the state policy to make it illegal to refuse any public school student based on race. Black teachers at public schools made less than their white counterparts – with the exception of in Washington D.C. where teachers were considered federal employees and were paid the same regardless of where they taught.

Even when public schools opened doors to black students, they were separated from their white peers, thus establishing the practice of segregation in America’s public schools. Following the Civil War, states were required to provide public education to black students, thus ushering in the establishment of Jim Crow laws pertaining to education. These practices followed the law when it came to providing a public education to black Americans, but kept black students separate from white ones. The phrase “separate but equal” was floated around as justification for the segregation but public schools were far from equitable.

Schools for black children lacked in resources throughout the country and overcrowding flourished despite there being many less black children in school than white ones. As far back as 1900, Virginia black schools had 37 percent more students than white ones (not more students overall, just more students per school building) and in the late 1930s, black school properties were valued at only one-third of white ones.

It’s interesting to take pause here and consider the fact that for all the strides public education has made in equality in the past 150 years, schools with majority black populations still tend to be the most overcrowded and underfunded. In the summer of 2013, the Chicago Board of Education voted to close 50 public schools in the city. Of the students impacted by the school closures, 88 percent were black and 94 percent came from low-income households. Those students were then sent to other schools, further crowding them and being uprooted from their school surroundings.  During the school year ending in 2011, there were 670 New York City school with student-to-teacher ratios above accepted, contract levels – the majority of which serve minority students[v]. Overcrowding is still a very real problem when it comes to the nation’s black and disadvantaged students, despite the guise of public, equitable schools.

The results of limited black public and private primary education in the 19th century were the first black American college graduates. Following the end of the Civil War, the first “black” colleges were established and by 1900, more than 2,000 African American students had earned college degrees. It’s interesting to note that despite a dramatic rise in that number over the next century, it was not until 1985 that Harvard University finally appointed its first black tenured professor.

Black students are not the only ones who have faced disadvantages when navigating the educational system of the U.S. While K-12 students today may learn that the Brown v. Board of Education ruling in 1954 was the final injustice in America’s public schools to be struck down, the journey toward true equality in education has still been laborious and 60 years later, has still not been achieved.

There is still an achievement gap between white students and black and other minority students. The National Assessment of Educational Progress consistently finds large achievement gaps, or lags in academic success between one student demographic and another, between white students and minority ones.  The latest comprehensive data is from 2009 and shows that there is a 26 percent gap in achievement in both mathematics and reading between fourth- and eighth-grade Hispanic students and their white peers. For Black students, the numbers were similar. Reading scores saw an achievement gap of 27 percent for fourth graders and 26 percent for eighth graders, and in math Black students had an achievement gap disadvantage of 26 percent for fourth graders and 31 percent for eighth graders.

Since the laws are in place to prevent inequality from infringing on K-12 education, why aren’t they working? Is there some unspoken prejudice against minority groups that is keeping each generation of K-12 students from achieving as much as their white peers? Though there are certainly plenty of conspiracy theories out there, the truth is much more complex.

Minorities have always had a tough go when it comes to achieving equality, in education and otherwise. Think back to the large Irish immigration of the late 19th century. This group of people in search of basic needs like food, shelter and religious freedoms faced an uphill battle when arriving on U.S. soil. The prevalence of the Catholic school system today is due in part to the need for the institutions when Irish children were refused an education, or severely bullied or discriminated against, in public or other private settings. Generally speaking, first-generation immigrants and their children have less, live in poorer neighborhoods and struggle on a greater scale with assimilation and language barriers. This is nothing new but it does impact the contemporary students in today’s classrooms.

The Hispanic population in the U.S., for example, grew 43 percent from the 2000 to 2010 Census reports, which was more than half of the total U.S. population increase 10. These students arrive in American classrooms and are already at a disadvantage to their peers who were born and raised on U.S. soil. Language, social and cultural barriers exist. And yes, there is some outright prejudice and discrimination too. The difference between these first-generation American students and the ones from a century ago is that fanning the flames of underachievement and intolerance are no longer acceptable – which gives them an advantage over their immigrant predecessors and leaves at least a glimmer of light that achievement gaps can be narrowed, or eliminated.

Differences in achievement of minorities are also based on simple logistics. In most states, public school selection is based on location – making true integration of the races impossible. Most Black students are still segregated to schools in predominantly black neighborhoods, and Hispanic ones tend to gravitate toward inner-city and urban schools that deal with larger issues of overcrowding and underfunding. Even if they minorities attend “white” schools, they are not quite at home in the surroundings. The basic public school principle of schooling students in their own neighborhoods or districts, which seems logical and smart on the surface, has actually led to segregation and unfair educational opportunities.

Some of the barriers that districting have put up are starting to come down due to states like California and New Jersey allowing for intra- and inter-district options for students. The implementation of public charter and magnet schools, or privately-run schools that use state funding and are tuition-free, have also given black students more options when it comes to choosing their schools, instead of being confined to the ones in their neighborhoods. The jury is still out on whether these tactics actually help the minority community as a whole, or hinder it. Is fleeing public schools, and trying desperately to escape disadvantaged neighborhoods, for the betterment of these communities – or does it undercut the community that already exists and bring it down even further?

Can we come up with solutions to the U.S. K-12 public school system that address the less-than-stellar history of education that has been unkind to minorities? I believe that we are just a generation or two away from truly reaching an equality point – we just need to continue to acknowledge that a problem exists and concentrate efforts on remedying it. Follow my series on the progress of the U.S. educational system to learn more about where we’ve been, and where we need to go, as collective educators.

 

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Higher Education, Special Report

Will the Costs of College Cause an Economic Disaster?

Higher education is potentially one of the best tools for social mobility in America. However, as it is set up now, it may only help the rich get richer. Why? Well, college is a great way for lower-income people to improve their economic situation—but they need to be able to afford it first.

Is college worth it for students who already start out at a disadvantage?  Let’s look at what students, especially from low-income areas, are up against when they choose post-secondary education today.

Is the future of higher education doomed?

In April 2014, education, corporate and philanthropic leaders from around the world who met in Essex, NY at a two-day Summit believed that many colleges will be unrecognizable in another decade and that unless millions more low-income students attain college degrees we face a global economic crisis.

Participating in the Summit were 60 individuals from China, Ireland, Great Britain, Canada, Germany, France and the United States representing a dozen colleges and universities, eight foundations, six corporations and 15 secondary schools, including executives from Google, The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, GE Foundation, Ernst & Young, University of Michigan, Harvard, Trinity College Dublin, Beijing Normal University, among others.

“Our outstanding participants included five lead speakers who framed the key issues surrounding college 2025. These speakers are futurists, experts in teaching and learning, recognized globally. We even had a 10-time Oscar winner,” said Rick Dalton, president and CEO of College For Every Student, the organization that sponsored the Summit with Trinity College Dublin.

Emerging Technology Trends

Dr. Nicholas Haan, a futurist from Singularity University in California, said, “We must leverage the exponential technology trends and the disruption that’s upon us to solve today’s inequalities and inefficiencies in education.”

Haan provided examples of the technology trends that will affect education in the near future, including Artificial Intelligence (AI) and robotics as well as Digital Manufacturing. He urged attendees to view challenges as problems that can be solved. “We need to throw out our old thinking and prepare ourselves for a world that is collaborative, ongoing and personalized.”

Lord David Puttnam of Queensgate, film producer, educationalist and Labour peer (UK), told summit participants, “Today’s students are embarking on a journey with no map. Today’s teachers are working in a scenario that has never been seen before – they are doing a job no one has ever been asked to do. They are becoming digital learners, interested in creating, sharing and delivering content with their students.”

Revolutionizing the Engine of Education

Paul Reville, former Massachusetts Secretary of Education and current professor at Harvard Graduate School of Education, said the “engine of education” should be re-configured, “We need to tackle the problem of differentiation, extend the entitlement of education and create a braided system that addresses – and includes – the challenges of social, physical and mental health services. A solution that focuses on instruction alone, simply will not work.”

Cliona Hannon, Director of Trinity Access Programmes (TAP) at Trinity College Dublin, said, “We are talking about developing innovative opportunities for low-income students. We need the talent of all young people engaged in civic society.”

The Recruiting Revolution

Dr. William Fitzsimmons, Harvard College’s Dean of Admissions, discussing the range of strategies and programs Harvard is undertaking to recruit low-income students and to support them once they’re enrolled, emphasizing “this is a human rights issue – it’s an outrage to waste the talent of these young people.”

From Harvard’s continued work on strengthening their financial aid structure, to actively recruiting low-income students in cities across the country, to creating and implementing student support programs, Fitzsimmons concluded “we can’t just bring students in and hope it works – it’s imperative we provide substantial support throughout.”

Professor Les Ebdon, Director of the Office of Fair Access in the UK, shared insights on his country’s approach to making fair access and participation a reality through its development of comprehensive access agreements.

Solutions to the Challenges

Leaders of the Summit will produce a white paper that delivers strategies to increase access and support for low-income students for College 2025.

“We know the devastating price of inequality, and we gathered to do something about it. There’s a better world out there for our children. A college degree is still the best path to a world of opportunity,” said Dalton of CFES.

Is college only for the elite?

Ironically, those who need to enter this “world of opportunity” most are least able to.

According to a report via the Times Higher Education, affluent children have a nearly 60 percent chance of “entering a highly selective university, compared with 27 percent for the less privileged group. The prospects of not entering any university were 8 percent and 27 percent, respectively.”

While this news isn’t necessarily new or surprising, it does continue to reaffirm a theory that higher education in the United States is not the model of equality that it really should be.

Student loan debt is a hot button issue now because it recently passed credit card and auto loan debt as the second-largest type of debt that Americans hold. Couple that news regarding debt to this report that suggests how tough it may be for less affluent children to enter America’s top colleges and it reveals flaws in our higher education systems.

The report also shows that no matter how higher education is structured in America and other countries, “affluent families will do whatever it takes to seek out qualitative advantages within the system that they face.”

In essence, rich kids still have a leg up. While this is not surprising, it is disheartening in a country that claims to be a land of equal opportunities.

As I have written about on my site, reorganizing how higher education impacts children who come from lesser backgrounds is paramount. Tuition growth will have to be restricted, the government will have to completely restructure Pell Grants and student loans, and America’s economy will have to continue to improve for these kids to have a chance to succeed.

Why the poor might not have access to a college education

It’s well-known how expensive post-secondary education is today. What is not as well-known is why.

Part of this is a lack of state investment in colleges and universities in recent years.

Only two states in the country are spending as much per student on higher ed funding as they did pre-recession, according to a report released by Young Invincibles. The nonprofit millennial advocacy group is pushing for debt-free higher ed funding and increased state involvement in helping young people obtain college degrees.

Between 2008-2014, North Dakota and Alaska were the only states to increase higher education spending, by 38 percent and 6 percent respectively. During this period every other state cut higher education funding, on average by 21 percent per student.

Why hasn’t higher education funding bounced back?

As the economy recovers, funding at the state level for colleges and universities has not bounced back. The reasons for these cutbacks vary based on state revenues, budget restrictions, and other factors. It seems that the decrease in investment is easier for policymakers to pass, as constituents are more likely to accept these types of cuts, versus more contentious moves like tax increases.

Though individuals may not overwhelmingly object to higher education budget cuts, they should. A direct impact can be seen in a family’s budget when these types of cuts are made. As states were decreasing their higher education funding, tuition and fees rose by 28 percent on average for two-year and four-year public universities, between 2008-2014. Tom Allison, Young Invincibles’ deputy director and author of the report tells MarketWatch, “The skyrocketing student debt we see is a symptom of a disease, and the disease we see is state disinvestment from higher education.”

The report clearly is not the first to draw a connection between states’ decreased investment in higher education and increasing tuition and growing student debt. However, Allison tells MarketWatch that arming residents with this type of information and how it directly affects their pocketbooks may encourage students, parents, and lawmakers to fight for better funding for higher education institutions.

Do students benefit from a “stable” higher education industry?

You might think that higher education is in trouble with everything that is going on within the industry. But surprisingly, the higher education industry is doing just fine.

According to Washingtonpost.com, Moody’s has officially upgraded the higher education industry to stable from negative.

“[T]he firm predicted that higher education will stabilize, for the first time post-recession, allowing more predictability in operating budgets. They upgraded the whole sector to “stable.””

The article lightly details why the rating was elevated and if it is sustainable.

Due to rising revenue because of growth in tuition and federal research funding, the industry has experienced stability, which is something higher education hasn’t been accustomed to since the start of Obama’s second term.

But that news isn’t necessarily grand for students. Tuition growth may be great for the industry as a whole because it decreases volatility, but rising college costs due to tuition increases have priced many students out of higher education.

Hopefully, the stability of the industry will lead to a reduction in how often colleges and universities are forced to raise tuition due to budget cuts and low funding from state legislatures.

But overall, this is good news. When higher education had a negative outlook, it was bad for all involved. An uptick in that outlook will surely help this arena in remaining stable and improving its standing in the coming years.

Answering the hard question: is college worth it anymore?

With all these factors that may benefit higher education, the government, the student loan industry, and everyone who is not a college student, it’s worth asking whether college is even worth going to anymore.

Many Americans definitely do not think so, and there is a lot of merit to that line of thought.

But the Obama Administration’s College Scorecard has a clearer, if counter-intuitive, insight.

The Obama Administration’s College Scorecard is kind of the gift that continues to give. It gives prospective students, and their parents, the ability to compare schools without having to fully visit too many colleges.

Another fantastic win from the scorecard is that we are provided with an idea of how well students do financially after they’ve graduated.

According to an article via Hamptonroads.com, the scorecard “tracks salaries ten years after the freshman year.” The good news? Student salaries used for the purpose of the article range from $34,000 to $56,000. The bad news? Salaries all depend on a student’s major.

But that’s not bad news as someone with a degree in finance is likely to make more than a student who chooses a career path in journalism.

The economy also plays a major role in determining one’s salary. Some companies constrict employment, increase employee production, and fail to produce salary increases because of how tight its bottom line becomes due to the state of the economy.

Even with those deciding factors, college graduates still make more than that of those with just high school diplomas. Most companies still prefer a college graduate compared to someone who just has a G.E.D. or high school diploma. A college degree won’t guarantee that you are wealthy, but it should help you live a more comfortable life than if you didn’t have it at all. That statistic isn’t likely to change anytime soon, and students should still strive for a college education to maximize their lifetime earning potential.

Now if we could just get the pursuit of those college degrees to be a little more affordable in the first place, we’d have something.

There are many ways to get there. Here are just a few suggestions.

Free college: a basic right or a privilege we can’t afford?

Earning a college education is something that is a double-edged sword for the nation’s youngest adults and some of their parents too. Society dictates that some form of secondary education is an absolute must for lifetime success but the cost associated with earning those credentials is debilitating. The Washington Post reports that the average college student will graduate with $25,000 in debt. With over $1 trillion in outstanding loans, student debt outweighs credit card debt and is exempt from bankruptcy protection.

Some may say this is just the cost of doing business and that a few years (or decades) of repaying student loans is worth the cost in the long run. If a person truly values his future, repaying loans and interest rates are just part of proving his dedication. To each his own, and other related monikers.

But what if that mentality were flipped? What if there was no cost to obtain a college education and it was viewed as a basic right, much like the K-12 public school system? With proponents such as 2016 Presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders, the conversation about free college is finally opening up in a major way.

It seems that the knee-jerk response is to claim that the nation can’t afford it. The trillion-dollar college education industry, coupled with the lending companies that “help” finance these endeavors, would feasibly go under if students did not have to find, earn or borrow the tens of thousands necessary to prove they care about their career.

Perhaps that’s true. But how would the economy as a whole look if college student debt disappeared? Instead of taking the first, low-paying job that came along to desperately find the cash to start repaying loans, maybe students would hold out for the perfect job where their talents and education could be best utilized. Instead of the nearly 22 million young adults living at home with their parents, maybe those kids would invest in their housing and start contributing to that industry faster. Parents who save every penny to pay for college would feasibly have more cash to put back into other aspects of the economy, strengthening whatever industries they touched.

When the facts are examined, it seems that the only ones truly benefitting from the current higher education model are the institutions themselves and the companies that support lending. In the second quarter of this year, private lender Sallie Mae reported $543 million in net income. In 2013 alone, Sallie Mae has spent over $1.2 million lobbying against legislation meant to relieve some of the college debt strain. Much like the skyrocketing healthcare industry costs over the past two decades, colleges and lenders have been left to their own devices with improper regulations.

The result is the “soaring college costs” we hear so much about today. According to the College Board in 1992 one year of college at a public four-year institution cost around $7,500 in today’s dollars. Now that cost is $10,000 higher. Private nonprofits cost around $17,000 in 1992; today the cost is nearly $24,000.  The cost of college is a runaway train at this point. College costs have risen faster than the inflation rate for decades.

While an economy hindrance, the high price tag of a college education has very little resistance when observing the nation’s population as a whole. Colleges and lending companies have, for the most part, gotten “a pass” because the pursuit of knowledge is deemed a worthy one where the price should never be considered an issue. Under the guise of a better-educated workforce, colleges and lenders have been able to get away with more than any other industry providing a basic, American service. What would the reaction be if utility costs rose that quickly, or the price of a gallon of milk?

For a college education to have the intended impact on the individual and society as a whole, it needs to be affordable – or completely free. It is a basic American right.

What if college can’t be free?

Perhaps a free college education is out of reach for America right now. However, an affordable one certainly shouldn’t be. At least, this is the hope of Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

Last year, she announced a plan that will tackle issues related to higher education.

“New College Compact” aims to tame the cost associated with attaining a college degree. She’s also looking to put a leash on student loan debt.

According to Brookings.edu, Clinton’s plan would make community colleges free.

“It vows to make enrollment at community colleges free and affordable without loans at four-year public institutions if students contribute the equivalent of wages from a 10-hour per-week job and families make the contribution prescribed by the aid eligibility formulas.”

Clinton is facing stiff competition from Bernie Sanders and will likely have to hold off a strong charge from Martin O’Malley. So releasing a progressive higher education plan surely works in her favor until it doesn’t.

While the plan sounds good on the surface, Clinton will have to tighten a few corners. HBCUs have serious concern over how free community college will impact their enrollment and financial aid.

She wants to reduce interest rates on student loans, but a Brookings study found that many students who reside in higher tax brackets hold a lot of the debt associated with student loans.

“Our prior analysis indicates that higher-income households hold a disproportionate share of student loan debt. The richest 25 percent of families hold 40 percent of the student loans, and would, therefore, receive roughly 40 percent of the benefits of a proposal that allowed all loan debt to be refinanced at lower rates.”

Still–even with that nugget of information, many low-income students who face high repayments or garnishment due to default would likely benefit from the proposal.

What would happen if schools stopped charging tuition?

Political activist Ralph Nader decided to run for president on the premise of being a consumer advocate and one who fights against keeping America from turning into an exclusive meritocracy.

It’s also why he wants his former school to do away with tuition

Nader graduated from the Harvard Law School in 1958 with a bachelor of law and thinks that the school isn’t doing enough to keep costs for student low.

Along with other activists, Nader is calling for Harvard University to use its endowment to eradicate tuition fees.

Boasting the largest endowment in the nation, Harvard has a fund of $36 billion and raised over $1 billion in 2015.

Simply put, Harvard isn’t hurting for dollars

Tapping into that income will not harm Harvard’s ability to fund other projects, like new buildings and paying for other fees, but it may set a precedent that other schools will be forced to follow.

Because Harvard’s endowment is so big–again, largest in the nation–it has the privilege that other schools may not harness.

Some in Congress are at least exploring the idea of potentially forcing some schools to use money from endowments towards tuition fees. The issue this presents is that many who decide to give to a school’s endowment usually do so for a certain cause or matter.

Former Harvard Business School student John Paulson gave the Harvard University School of Engineering and Applied Science a gift of $400 million in 2015. That money may be designated strictly for use at that school.

It’s also worth noting that these endowments are tax exempt and the policy may allow for schools like Harvard to run up the score.

Removing that exemption may not hurt Harvard, but it would damage other schools. For example, Grambling State University’s (GSU) endowment is only $4.5 million, and the school would be severely hurt if that money was taxed. GSU also has an alumni base that isn’t as financially strong as Harvard.

For the sake of rich and powerful schools, doing away with tuition fees would certainly help its students. But that rule should likely only apply to schools that can afford it, which means that no law or policy may be created to force schools to do so.

Are Income Share Agreements another option for college affordability?

What are Income Share Agreements (ISA)?

These will help students who take out loans to attain a degree that may be deemed worthless in the workplace. Often, they are saddled with massive amounts of debt that they are unable to pay back.

This causes many to default on their loans and fall down an income hole that detaches them from the ability to obtain credit to purchase a home, vehicle, etc…

Because it’s tough to section these students off–those who may be in danger of gaining a degree that’s economically barren–some may be eligible to take out an ISA loan.

These loans allow the student to pay back the cost of their degree regarding its value. So if one student has a degree that has little to no worth, he or she will have a small amount, if any, to repay.

Inversely, if a student’s degree turns out to be of much value, then that student will pay back more.

Ostensibly this seems like a good deal for students. It’s affordable, colleges and universities seem open to it, and Congress is exploring ways to create a regulatory environment for ISAs.

Hopefully, once properly researched and vetted, the application of these loans are a win for students as the cost of tuition and school fees continue to rise.

How to prevent an economic crisis by making college affordable again

Let’s be clear—there are many ways to peel a banana. Since there are many reasons higher education costs have skyrocketed over the past few decades, there are many solutions we can engage to manage these costs and lessen the burden on students.  We can make college totally free, or we can look for various ways to make college less expensive.

One thing seems to clear, though: students who are lower-income need to be able to find their way up…and it is becoming more and more difficult to do so. These days, a college degree is more necessary than ever. We need to make college cheaper and more accessible to lower-income students if we want a vibrant future for our economy.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Policy & Reform

How Did We Get Here? Part VII: A Nation of Public School Students at Risk

This is one of a multi-part series on the progression of education policies in the U.S. from its founding. Click here to see a list of all the posts in this series. 

By Matthew Lynch

During the 1980s, American educators and the public first became concerned in a sweeping way about the quality of education in tax-funded schools. In 1981, the National Commission on Excellence in Education was formed and the group released A Nation at Risk, an in-depth report that warned against the future dangers that could result from mere mediocrity in U.S. public schools. With the help of the national media who sunk its teeth into the story, the report seemed to awaken concern from sea to shining sea – in every school room and around every dining room table. Though the concern should have been purely based on the learning aspect of American students, there were even larger worries that loomed, mainly the future economy. It marked the first time in the history of public schools in America that citizens began to compare students to those in other developed countries like Japan, China and even England. The assumption that America the Beautiful was also the best at everything, including educating its kids, was turned on its head. People started to worry, really worry, about where the youth of the nation would guide them in coming years.

Reform started to take place but on local levels. Schools took it upon themselves to correct the problem of incompetent and uncaring students by adding graduation requirements, and raising teacher salaries. Universities jumped in by heightening the requirements for young educators to earn their degrees in an attempt to give K-12 students an advantage through the resource of stronger teachers.  Books written by reformers like Allan Bloom emphasized the need for stronger curriculum that emphasized the ideas behind things, not just the facts. Simply teaching what was on a page was clearly not working when it came to teaching the whole student and getting young Americans prepared for the workforce and citizenship.

One big push of the late 1980s when it came to reform, as pointed out by reformer and educator Diane Ravitch in a piece about the decade in public education, was the elimination of multiple choice tests as forms of assessments. Free response items and short-essay options were beginning to gain favor with educators across the country as true indicators of what students had really comprehended. While multiple choice options started to fade from routine school exams, it is interesting to note that they are still the main way state assessments are delivered today. As a matter of efficiency, these easily scanned answer sheets make the most sense. As a way to truly assess what students do and do not know, they are lacking.

Ravitch also points out in her essay that “one of the most promising developments” of public education in the 1980s was the recognition from the business community that the schools needed its help. Businesses provided funding to schools, set up scholarship programs and looked for other opportunities to give students the help they needed to feel encouraged in their educational pursuits.

That momentum carried over into the 1990s but instead of a renewed dedication to the goals of public education, the American public and reformers looked outside for answers. The phrase “school choice” began to resonate throughout the country, with people wondering what could be done to funnel public dollars to alternatives to public schools. Funding for schools with a religious theme had actually been discussed in the past, over 100 years earlier when it was first suggested that parochial schools receive a government stipend to help with expenses. Fearing the rising Irish Catholic population, state lawmakers put the kibosh on any such plans, citing separation of church and state. As parents began to question the value of the public school education provided to their kids, they began to feel entitled to different choices for their kids when the provided tax-funded school performed under par.

A new ideology began to take shape in the form of charter schools – publicly funded, non-religious schools that were given freedoms to innovate outside the constraints of public school regulations. To some, it seemed like a smart way to provide more educational options while fueling the fire under public schools which up until then, had faced no real competition. To critics, the plan to use taxpayer dollars to fund new schools only focused the money away from the place where it was really needed: actual public schools.

The school choice debate still rages on today, with a renewed call for vouchers for religious schools thrown in the mix. Some states, like Texas and Florida, allow wide-ranging options in school choice while others like Mississippi have virtually none. The effectiveness of all this “choice” is also difficult to determine. According to a Stanford University document, there were 6,000 charter schools in 42 states and the District of Columbia that served 2.3 million students in 2013– a number that rose 80 percent from 2009. Yet the unaccountability that charter schools are afforded, in comparison with traditional public schools, can cause them to be pretty unreliable too. During 2013, 17 charter schools closed in Columbus, Ohio alone. Nine of those schools only hung around for a few months before being forced to shut down. Students who left their own public schools, and even private ones, to give the shiny new charter schools a chance were forced to go back to their original spots.

The closing of 17 public schools in one city is completely unheard of and for good reason. Public schools are investments in more than just the students who attend. They represent the communities where they are established, and even if they have a rough year or two, they continue to strive for excellence for their students. It’s not that charter and other schools of choice do not share this passion for their students, but with the freedom to wander any direction they choose, these schools can be very volatile.

The 1990s also ushered in a new age of accountability in public schools, triggered by the quality concerns in the 1980s. The roots for the No Child Left Behind Act that was established in 2002 were planted in 90s educational reform movements. NCLB was a reenactment of the very outdated Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. Both acts focused on ways to bring higher levels of equality to public education but NCLB also had a strong focus on bolstering student test scores and making teachers liable. In ways that were completely groundbreaking, NCLB put pressure on every educator from top education policy-makers to teachers in the classroom to heighten achievement.

While the basic tenets of NCLB have been scrutinized, and questioned at every turn, the truth remains that they are still a very large part of the educational system in today’s public school classrooms. The release and adoption of Common Core Standards in 2013 took the ideology of NCLB to a new level. Though voluntary based on state, these new accountability measures strike eerily similar to the federally mandated ones of NCLB. Instead of getting away from empty assessments that often take the shape of multiple choice questions it seems that public school systems are simply adding to the void. It’s not a pretty picture but the reality of what educators are facing right now, and it will certainly impact this generation of K-12 students. Follow my series on the progress of the U.S. educational system to learn more about where we’ve been, and where we need to go, as collective educators.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Higher Education, Special Report

How For-Profit Colleges Lost Their Groove

Due to leaving their graduates with high debt loads, for-profit colleges are becoming the target of scrutiny from the federal government. But is this scrutiny justified?

Like many proponents of non-traditional pathways to college, Marco Rubio, a Republican presidential candidate for 2016, wants to expand the role that for-profit schools have in higher education.

According to USA Today, Rubio wrote an editorial for the National Review where he details why he believes the nation is better off if the education department changes the rules of accreditation for for-profit schools.

“These innovative providers cannot compete with the cartel of existing brick-and-mortar colleges and universities that dominate the accreditation process and shields our higher-education system from reform, competition, and accountability.”

Rubio is referring to how tough it is for for-profit colleges to attain accreditation. In changing the process, Rubio believes that it would allow for more for-profit schools to offer vocational training.

In doing so, far more Americans will be ready to attain gainful employment. In essence, Rubio wants “more welders and fewer philosophers.”

There’s a slight problem with Rubio’s argument. He’s receiving donations from the for-profit education industry. It’s not much as Rubio has taken in about $24,000 since 2014 according to opensecrets.org.

While the totals aren’t high, it supports the idea that Rubio only has this idea to appease a portion of his donation base.

But in addition to that, allowing more for-profit schools into the world of education without dealing with the problems that many have caused is not the best idea.

After all, the United States Education Department has been busy putting out their fires.

Rubio is right that students may need greater access to vocational institutions, but for-profit colleges may not be the best way to go. Here’s why.

For-Profit Colleges: Centers of Financial Ruin?

Unfortunately for those students looking for an affordable alternative to brick-and-mortar schools, online higher education options aren’t necessarily cheaper than the traditional brick-and-mortar schools, according to U.S. News and World Report,

The report attempts to “debunk” the myths surrounding the theory that online education may be a cheaper option for some students.

According to usnews.com, tuition costs for online courses, or degrees in some cases, are more expensive due to technology and faculty costs.

“Even if tuition for an online program looks appealingly low, students should be sure to look into whether they will be paying any additional fees, says Vickie Cook, director of the Center for Online Learning, Research, and Service at the University of Illinois—Springfield.”

Depending on the type of school the student chooses, the cost of attending varies. Selecting a private higher education institution that offers online programs will certainly trend higher than a public university with controlled costs.

Most importantly, many for-profit schools offer online programs. The costs associated with these programs and schools will sometimes rival that of some of the country’s best schools.

In fact, according to a new report by the Brookings Institute, a good chunk of student loan debt is held by students who attend for-profit institutions.

“The so-called student loan crisis in the U.S. is largely concentrated among non-traditional borrowers attending for-profit schools and other non-selective institutions, who have relatively weak educational outcomes and difficulty finding jobs after starting to repay their loans.”

Students who attend non-profit private schools or public universities do not face the same debt issue because their job prospects are much higher upon graduation.

Borrowers at for-profit institutions have a harder time finding gainful employment, and when they do, their average earnings barely creep over $20,000.

“[T]he median borrower from a for-profit institution who left school in 2011 and found a job in 2013 earned about $20,900—but over one in five (21 percent) were not employed; comparable community college borrowers earned $23,900, and almost one in six (17 percent) were not employed.”

The report also finds that students who attend the University of Phoenix hold the most debt. In 2014, students there held over $35 billion dollars in student loan debt.

College students work hard to make a better life for themselves and their families — but student loans can have the opposite effect, at least in the immediate. Tuition at these private schools is astronomical, and if students cannot find jobs to pay their loans back, attaining a degree from these schools is pointless.

Introducing the Corinthian 100

Some former graduates of these colleges are beginning to realize this.

Take Corinthian Colleges, for example. As reported by NPR, 107 of its students refused to pay back their student loans as a form of protest.

In addition to a large amount of debt that the students carried, they also claimed that the degrees they received from Corinthian are not recognized by most employers.

The Associated Press reported that Corinthian shut its doors at the end of April 2014 due to federal regulations. The college had more than 100 U.S. campuses with more than 70,000 students. But when enrollment started to slump and reports showed that nearly 100% of students at for-profit schools take out student loans to pay for their education, the United States Department of Education stepped in.

According to NPR, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau met with representatives from the “Corinthian 100” to discuss “ways to address the burden of their student loans.” While this was likely a step in the right direction for those students, it didn’t fully address the student loan debt crisis that’s beginning to engulf higher education.

The Institute for College Access and Success by way of Pew Trusts shows that five states have an average debt for graduating students of more than $30,000. Consider that student loan debt now outpaces debt tied to mortgages and credit cards, and that more than 7 million U.S. borrowers are in default on their loans. Higher education just may be in crisis.

The Government Cracks Down

A couple of years ago, the U.S. Department of Education bumped up its regulation of for-profit career colleges, introducing rules meant to halt federal funding to institutions that leave students saddled with enormous debts that they are unable to repay.

The efforts by Obama’s administrations showed that federal and state authorities were ramping up their examination of the for-profit college industry, which included colleges such as the University of Phoenix and Everest College and ITT Technical Institute.

Opponents believe that many for-profit colleges charge a hefty price, yet target low-income consumers, resulting in students who have massive loans to repay and few job prospects.

U.S. Secretary Arne Duncan said, “Today too many of these programs fail to provide the training (students) need while burying them in debt they cannot repay.”

The for-profit college industry boomed during the Great Recession as colleges targeted the increasing number of unemployed Americans.

The Education Department’s new rules would penalize schools that cost their students too much debt compared to their earnings post-graduation. To be eligible for federal student loans and grants, schools must meet debt-to-income requirements for two out of three consecutive years.

The department estimated about 1,400 programs out of 5,500 covered by the regulations would fail the debt-to-income test.

Students at for-profit schools default on federal loans at a higher rate than students at traditional public colleges: over 19% after three years, compared with less than 13% at public institutions.

The government has continued with tightening regulations for colleges and universities. In 2015, the U.S. Department of Education released a list of 556 colleges and universities that were on a federal financial “watch list.” The Wall Street Journal reported that the Department of Education would have “increased financial oversight” into what these institutions of higher education do with the money they received from federal student aid.

On the list was a mixture of for-profit, public and Bible schools that were flagged because of accreditation, liabilities, and late financial statements. Nearly half of the institutions listed were for-profit schools such as the Art Institutes, Everest University, and Le Cordon Bleu. Many of the schools were already placed on this oversight list, but those names were previously not publicly released.

The Obama administration did more than put names of schools on lists, though.

Over the past year, they have forced schools to pay them for mishandling their funds

For example, in 2015, in what is perhaps the largest monetary settlement in higher education, Education Management Corporation (EMC) agreed to a $95.5 million settlement with the United States Justice Department. You probably know EDMC better by its school names: the Art Institutes, Argosy University, and Brown-Mackie College.

The lawsuit alleged, “that the company defrauded taxpayers out of billions of dollars.” The company is accused of admitting unqualified students and then encouraging them to receive federal and private loans to fund their educations.

Education Management Corporation continued to maintain its innocence and released a statement regarding the settlement.

In part that statement says:

“We are also pleased to have resolved the civil claims raised by the Department of Justice and state attorneys general. Though we continue to believe the allegations in the cases were without merit, putting these matters behind us returns our focus to educating students.”

A payout to the government of nearly $100 million, however, certainly sounds as if there was merit involved.

Education Management Corporation will continue to do business and enroll students. Because the company admitted no guilt, students who attended schools under the EDMC banner will likely be ineligible for debt relief.

Part of the settlement also includes over $100 in loan forgiveness for students who left EDMC after just 45 days of enrollment. All other students are still liable for any debt incurred while attending an EDMC institution.

While EDMC is still in business despite being accused of predatory practices, the Corinthian Colleges, mentioned earlier, shut down after being fined by the federal government.

According to Corinthian’s financial records, the institution received nearly 80% of its revenue from the federal government. Meaning the vast majority of its profit came from student loans.

The government began to investigate Corinthian because students claimed that the degrees they received weren’t being recognized by employers and they couldn’t find jobs. They also found that Corinthian was telling students to lie on their financial aid applications.

Soon after, Corinthian was fined $30 million by the federal government for “misrepresenting job placement rates,” effectively shutting the company down.

But does the government care about students?

The Corinthian 100 saga continues

Students who formerly attended Corinthian Colleges accused the United States Department of Education (USDOE) of using them as a publicity stunt.

Representatives from the “Corinthian 100” were set to meet with officials from the USDOE about their student loan debts. However, they opted to cancel the meeting because they felt they were being used.

According to the New Republic, a representative from the Debt Collective, the organization aiding the students in their quest against the USDOE, did not believe the government wanted to help.

“They’re using us so they can pretend to care about students.”

The Corinthian 100 continued to fight to get the government to forgive their student loan debt. Students that formerly attended schools under the now defunct Corinthian Colleges banner tried to exercise a clause listed in the contracts they signed for student loans.

That portion of the contract allowed for students to make a “defense of repayment” if they felt that they were deceived.

Once they found out that the federal government fined Corinthian $30 million, in part, for felonious ways of collecting debt, the 100 wanted their debt forgiven.

Students fight back—but is it enough?

According to chronicle.com, the Corinthian 100 had their debt forgiven.

“The department said…that it would discharge the debt of all students who attended one of Corinthian’s shuttered campuses after June 20, 2014, the day when the company essentially wrote its death sentence by agreeing to transfer ownership of the properties. Other Corinthian students will be eligible for loan forgiveness but to receive it, they must demonstrate that Corinthian violated state law.”

While some students likely felt some sense of relief, many students were left in the dust. After all, only some students would receive forgiveness. Others who feel that they’d been defrauded by Corinthian, as stated in the Chronicle of Higher Education’s article, would have to prove that the former institution of higher education violated state law.

The Department of Education would make the process of proving fraud by colleges and universities easier.

Still–this likely will not be enough to save every student defrauded by for-profit colleges. While it is great that many received the mercy of the United States Department of Education, the other students who borrowed in good faith with the belief that there would be a good education, a degree, and solid job opportunities on the back end are left hanging.

Giving blanket relief may not be in the department’s best intentions as it would open other doors that should remain closed. But giving special attention to the rest of Corinthian’s former students and giving them extra breathing room to either pay off the debt or taking on the vast majority of the debt is at least one way to help them in the long run.

For-Profit Schools Fight Back

Unsurprisingly, for-profit schools refused to take the new regulations and fines sitting down

In fact, the Association of Private Sector Colleges and Universities, a group that represents for-profit colleges, sued the U.S. Department of Education and Secretary Arne Duncan on behalf of for-profit colleges. For-profit colleges disagreed with the rules penalizing career training programs for charging high tuition that saddles students with massive debt while offering low-paying job prospects.

For-profit schools filed a lawsuit and asked a judge to reject the new regulation, claiming the Department of Education does not have the right to set debt-to-earning standards. The Association of Private Sector Colleges and Universities called the rule “unlawful, arbitrary, and irrational” and feels it will “needlessly harm millions of students who attend private sector colleges and universities.” They strong believe that the job a student lands and their earnings after graduation “depend heavily on factors beyond the schools’ control.”

The Education Department announced its “gainful employment” rules, which base a program’s ability to receive federal loans on whether the estimated annual loan payment of a typical graduate doesn’t exceed 8% of total earnings or 20% of the student’s discretionary income.

For-profit colleges were given time to make changes, but ultimately, if they failed to meet the standards, they would become ineligible for federal student aid. This made up nearly 90% of the revenue at for-profit schools.

And even more strangely, these institutions saw a steep rise in stock worth and revenue through 2014, when a lot of the regulatory changes began to take place. According to a CNN Money report, Strayer Education was perhaps the biggest success of the bunch. Strayer provides a variety of accreditation, bachelor degree, and master’s degree options through programs that are set up at 100 other colleges and universities across the country.  DeVry Education Group and Capella also saw rising stocks.

This was likely because more and more people are seeking out alternative forms of higher education, and that non-traditional students are more commonplace as a result. But what’s interesting about these numbers is that the schools are seeing financial strength despite heightened regulations from the government and the failures of Corinthian Colleges and other alternative schools.

Should For-Profit Schools Be Put to Death?

For-profit schools are singing a different tune these days

According to a survey by the Education Advisory Board, nearly 100% of executives at online higher education programs and schools want to shift their focus to “track career outcomes” for students once they leave school.

Before this change, many online higher ed schools were focused solely on gathering funding for new programs.

This news comes on the heels of the federal government tightening its grip on for-profit institutions and the funding they receive.

The EAB survey found that executives have concern over how employers view graduates and would like to “improve messaging to prospective students.”

Messaging and how online schools are viewed have taken a beating lately. With the Corinthian 100 refusing to repay their student loans because they were defrauded by Corinthian Colleges,  for-profit colleges have developed a sour reputation.

Potential students and graduates worry that their degrees are useless. While all online colleges aren’t seen in the same light, many are grouped together because the accreditation may differ from traditional colleges and universities. Standards for online schools, especially for-profit institutions with online programs, also vary and give many employers pause before hiring a graduate from an online university, specifically that from a for-profit.

The survey also found that some online higher ed institutions will add “digital badges” and “customization certificates.”

Conclusion

Focusing on the quality of education the students receive—rather than focus on securing funding for the government for questionable programs—will have a better long-term impact for students and these schools.

Truthfully, while I have come down pretty hard on for-profit schools, I do not think that they are inherently bad. I think that they can be part of an array of alternative options for students who choose not to go the traditional route.

However, historically, many for-profit institutions have engaged in predatory practices. Regulating them, as the federal government has been doing over the past few years, is the right way to go so that they can become great building blocks rather than destructive forces for a future career.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Policy & Reform

How Did We Get Here? Part VI: Unified, Then Divided, Public Schools

This is one of a multi-part series on the progression of education policies in the U.S. from its founding. Click here to see a list of all the posts in this series. 

By Matthew Lynch

Public education in the U.S. remained primarily unchanged throughout the first and second World Wars. Improvements in communication, particularly through radio transmissions, brought schools into the worldwide on goings of the battles. Though not part of any textbooks or measured testing, wartime knowledge became something of value in public schools and patriotism grew in its role as a virtue. Unlike the Civil War, which divided the nation, the World Wars in the first half of the 20th century knit the union more tightly together. As millions of men fought outside U.S. soil, women filled in job roles and kids continued to attend school. Going to school and learning was in its own way a sign of solidarity.

The united feel of public education was all but destroyed in the 1950s and 1960s as issues of desegregation plagued the nation. Many Americans cheered the changes, of course, but there were enough opposing desegregation to make it a bleak time in U.S. public school history. If public education was, after all, meant to provide common knowledge, and life skills, in equal ways to all children in America then the theory of “separate but equal” certainly needed to be disposed. Change is difficult though, even in one of the most progressive nations in the world. The World War I and II-era solidarity in public school classrooms faded, replaced for arguably the first time in U.S. history with controversy within the schools. As the adults of the nation debated what should be allowed in schools and what was best for students, the children lived it out.

These two decades mark an important change in the role and perception of public schools in America. Before schools started taking on bigger issues like desegregation, and abuse, and childhood hunger, they were places that served the needs of the nation. That tide turned in the mid-1900s as public schools began to lead instead of just follow. Public schools stopped adhering to what was dictated for its next generation in terms of learning and citizenship and began to blaze a trail for the rest of society where collective belief systems were concerned. It may have been too late to change the minds of disenfranchised adults who had grown up accepting their worlds in a particular way, but it was still early for students. Needed change was not going to happen overnight but it was needed just the same.

Schools became the vehicles for future change, starting with the youth of the nation. The focus was no longer just on economics, or raising ideal citizens; core ideologies were being shaped in public school classrooms across the nation.

This characteristic of public schools is still evident today. Take anti-bullying campaigns, for example, particularly as they relate to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender students. While many parents (and even some school boards) are fighting against anti-bullying policies that are designed to protect LGBT students, schools across the country are adopting them at a rapid pace anyway. The same is true of healthy eating programs and the push to get kids away from television and computers and involved in active pursuits instead. Schools cannot change what is being taught at home, or even what students themselves believe. Yet by leading change through example and actual policy, the thought is that future generations will have a different approach to important issues than their parents did. Like the socially conscious efforts of Dewey, public schools establish principles that then govern a particular group of K-12 students as adults.

The 1970s brought even more equality in public schools with the passage of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act. This was the first federal regulation that mandated that public schools accepting federal funding also provide a free education, and meals, to children with mental or physical disabilities. It was not enough to simply accept the students; schools had to create a teaching plan that would give these students as close to a typical education as their non-handicapped peers. Though separate classrooms were inherent to the plan, schools were instructed to keep special education students as near to their peers as possible. By this token, public schools became even stronger when it came to truly opening their doors for all students, and being a right of American life. Follow my series on the progress of the U.S. educational system to learn more about where we’ve been, and where we need to go, as collective educators.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Higher Education

Want college to be affordable? Start with Pell Grants

Donald E. Heller, University of San Francisco

In her speech accepting the Democratic presidential nomination, Hillary Clinton talked about free college and student debt relief.

Convention speeches are not normally known for providing details of policy proposals, and keeping with tradition, Clinton offered few details of her own. Now that we are past the conventions and into the campaign, presidential nominees Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are likely to speak in more detail about their specific policies.

What is missing in the debate about free college, however, is a discussion of the role of Pell Grants, the centerpiece of the federal government’s student aid programs. These grants, which used to cover almost the entire cost of a college education for poor students, today cover less than a third. The current Republican budget proposal would erode it even further, threatening the ability of students from poor and moderate-income families to attend and graduate from college.

From my perspective as a researcher who has studied questions of college access for two decades, any discussion of free college has to include the role of Pell Grants in college affordability.

What are Pell Grants and why are they important?

Pell Grants were created in the 1972 reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. This coming academic year they will provide grant aid of up to US$5,815 to students from low- and moderate-income families.

Last year, over eight million undergraduates across the nation received a total of about US$30 billion in Pell Grants.

In 2011-12, 41 percent of undergraduates received a Pell Grant. Dollar image via www.shutterstock.co

Data from the U.S. Department of Education show that in the 2011-12 school year (the most recent data available), 41 percent of all undergraduate students received a Pell Grant, almost double the 22 percent of students who received them in 1999.

For most students, the funding they receive from the Pell program outstrips what they receive in aid from either their state or the institution they attend.

Using data from the U.S. Department of Education, I calculated that the average Pell Grant recipient received an amount from that program that was five times greater than what they received in state grant aid and 2.6 times greater than the amount of scholarship assistance received from the institution attended.

Without Pell Grants, in other words, many low-income students would not be able to attend college, or would not be able to attend full time and make good progress toward earning their degree.

Pell Grant value dips, tuition increases

In a book I edited a few years ago, I demonstrated that back in the 1970s, a student attending a public, four-year university and receiving the maximum Pell Grant would have approximately 80 percent of the price of her college education – tuition, housing, food, books and miscellaneous costs – covered by the grant.

If the student had no resources of her own to contribute, the remaining 20 percent of the cost was often made up through state grants, scholarships from the university, work study and perhaps a small amount of student loans.

Today the maximum that a Pell Grant covers is only about 30 percent of the price of attending college for that same student. The erosion in the value of the grant is due to two reasons: 1) the rising price of college attendance and 2) a drop in the real value of Pell Grants.

Since 1985, average tuition prices at public, four-year colleges and universities have increased 222 percent after adjusting for inflation. The situation at private four-year colleges and community colleges is only slightly better – average prices in the two sectors have increased more than 130 percent in real terms during the same three decade period.

Pell Grants, in contrast, have grown much less rapidly. The average grant increased only 30 percent in inflation-adjusted dollars during this same period.

Former U.S. President George W. Bush after he signed a bill on Pell Grants. Larry Downing/Reuters

In the latter half of the 1980s and through most of the 1990s, Congress and a series of presidents – Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton – allowed the purchasing value of Pell Grants to decline even further.

The maximum Pell Grant actually dropped 19 percent in real dollars between 1985 and 1996. While federal funding over the last two decades has allowed it to regain some of its value, the maximum Pell Grant today is still below the 1975 level in inflation-adjusted dollars.

Impact of GOP proposal

As bad as this situation is, it could get much worse. The current Republican spending plan in the House of Representatives proposes to place a cap on the maximum Pell Grant. What this means is that it would stay at its 2015-16 level for the next 10 years.

While it is hard to predict for sure what will happen to tuition prices over the next decade, it is fairly certain that prices will continue to rise. This will cause the value of the Pell Grant to erode even further during this period.

Students protesting against rising college costs. Max Whittaker?Reuters

For example, again, based on my calculations, if college prices increase 3 percent per year over the next decade, and Pell Grants are held at their current level, its purchasing power at public four-year institutions would drop from 30 percent of total college costs today to only 21 percent in 2026.

At private four-year institutions, the Pell value would drop from 17 percent of costs today to only 12 percent 10 years from now.

The Republican proposal, if enacted, would undoubtedly have an impact on the college access and success of students from low- and moderate-income families. Constraining the grant aid available to them from the federal financial aid programs could force more students to drop out of college. Or, students could take longer to earn their degrees, or could afford to attend only a community college rather than a four-year institution.

The impact on college access for these students would be detrimental to the nation as a whole. As President Obama noted in his first address to Congress in 2009, the future growth of our economy will depend on having more workers with post-secondary credentials. Without a Pell Grant program that keeps pace with college costs, we will be unable to attain this goal.

Clinton and Trump should be talking about the issue of college affordability on the campaign trail. But they need to address all of the policies that help make college affordable for students and their families.

Funding for the Pell Grant program is a critical component of that.

The Conversation

Donald E. Heller, Provost and Vice President of Academic Affairs, University of San Francisco

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Higher Education

Diversity in Higher Education: The Issues Most People Don’t Think About

Colleges used to be for the elites only…but now student bodies are no longer composed of primarily male, white students. Some estimates show that half of America’s current workforce now passes through college first and 75 percent of students in high school spend at least some time studying in a higher education setting. That number is up from an elite four percent in 1900. What’s more – the number of college students from low-income and minority families continues to rise. When it comes to diversity in higher education, in this article, we will talk about the issues that most people don’t think about.

Of course, the increased diversity of student bodies comes with its own quirks. Read on and find out:

  • What’s helping so many more students go to school
  • Why men and Asian Americans might get the short end of the stick
  • The shocking fact about faculty in higher education

Two tools that are changing the face of higher education

Young people who choose to pursue more education after high school are often encouraged by the idea of more attractive career prospects. However, let’s be honest. College can have a hefty price tag. This is enough to keep many from attending.

Fortunately, however, there are ways to get around the fact that college (and other post-secondary training programs) is just plain expensive. Let’s just talk about two.

First, there are online courses.  Each year online learning becomes less of a fringe movement and more mainstream. More than 6.7 million people took at least one online class in the fall of 2011 and 32 percent of college students now take at least one online course during their matriculation. It is even becoming common for high schools to require all students to take an online class before graduation as a way to prep them for the “real world” of secondary education.

Online learning is flexible and convenient. This is well-known. But less discussed is the way distance education promotes diversity of the college population. With less red tape than the traditional college format, online students are able to earn credits while still working full time, maintaining families and dealing with illnesses. Whether students take just one course remotely, or obtain an entire degree, they are able to take on the demands of college life more readily – leading to student populations with more variety.

The Babson Survey Research Group recently revealed that while online college student enrollment is on the rise, traditional colleges and universities saw their first drop in enrollment in the ten years the survey has been conducted. This drop is small – less than a tenth of one percent – but its significance is big. A trend toward the educational equality of online curriculum is being realized by students, institutions and employers across the board. The benefits of a college education are more accessible to students that simply cannot commit to the constraints of a traditional campus setting.

A controversial experiment that could lead the way to even more college credit accessibility is MOOCs, or massive open online courses. As the name implies, these classes are offered to the general public at a low cost, or no cost, in the hopes of earning their students college credit. California-based online course provider Coursera recently had five of its offerings evaluated by the American Council on Education for college credit validity. Four of the courses were recommended for college credit by ACE, and one was endorsed for vocational credit, providing student work verification through a strict proctoring process.

These credits are not earned through community colleges or online-institutions; Duke University, the University of California at Irvine and the University of Pennsylvania are on Coursera’s list of places the courses will earn credit for students that pay a nominal fee. Students that obtain these credits through Coursera can approach any higher education institution and seek their inclusion in a degree program, but the final discretion is up to the particular school.

MOOCs are certainly in an infancy stage and do not provide a “sure thing” yet for students that participate. In the Babson survey mentioned earlier, only 2.6 percent of schools offer a MOOC, but an additional 9.4 percent are building a MOOC plan. This form of online learning means that students do not have to commit to an entire course of study to receive credits. They don’t even have to commit to a particular institution upfront.

MOOCs will further eliminate the socio-economic barriers that keep promising students from seeking out college credits. Students are given more flexibility in scheduling at an affordable price. Though the MOOC trend has its dissenters, I believe it will win over even the most skeptical and increase accessibility for all people that seek higher education. After all, at one time the mention of online courses raised a few eyebrows in the educational community and look how far the concept has come. Further development of online initiatives, specifically in the area of MOOCs, represents the next big step for enriching the diversity of the college student population in America.

Another option that makes college more accessible, not quite so new and exotic as online courses, is community college.

According to Dr. Alicia Dowd, associate professor of Higher Education at the University of Southern California, about 7 million students are enrolled in community colleges. As she says, “[I]t’s not an overstatement to say that community colleges are an integral part of the national narrative in the United States about the ‘American Dream.’ Sandwiched between high school and four-year colleges and universities, they are an important rung in the ladder of our very stratified society and educational system.”

Community colleges are important to many students because of the increased opportunities for success provided by conveniences such as price, flexibility for those with busy work schedules, proximity, and accessibility for non-traditional students.

Promoting Diversity: Are men and Asian American students getting the short end of the stick?

That more women, underrepresented minorities, and low-income students have been attending college over the past several decades is rather encouraging.

But sometimes, in paying attention to certain groups, other groups are neglected.  It’s worth looking at what this might mean.

If you have been following education hot button issues for any length of time, you’ve likely read about the nationwide push to better encourage girls in areas like science, technology, engineering and math (STEM). The thought is that by showing young women that these topics are just as appropriate for them as their male peers, more women will find lasting careers in these traditionally male-dominated fields.

I’m all for more women in the STEM workplace but with all this focus in one area, are educators neglecting an even larger gender gap issue?

Nationally, over 57 percent of college attendees are female when public and private school stats are combined. Females have been consistently edging ahead of their male classmates since the late 1970s when the percentages flip-flopped. Aside from all-female schools, there are others that have marked disproportionate numbers. Pacific Oaks College in Pasadena has nearly 96 percent females in attendance, and the University of Tennessee Health Sciences Center in Memphis has over 93 percent.

There are a few reasons why more young women than men are choosing a college education. The first is that there are more trades that do not require a college degree that appeal to men. The second is that economically speaking, women earn a better living with a college degree than without one in comparison to men. Though there is still a wage gap (in 2012, women earned just 80.9 percent of the salaries of their male counterparts), women see the value their earning potential can gain from achieving a college diploma.

I hear people asking this question all the time: What are K-12 educators doing wrong when it comes to preparing young women for STEM careers? It’s a valid one.

But based on the statistics I’ve listed here, shouldn’t we also be asking this question: What are K-12 educators doing when it comes to preparing young men for a college education?

It all comes down to the weight we assign to the worth of a college education. If a diploma is simply a way to earn more money over a lifetime, then perhaps men are doing the intelligent thing by launching into the workforce early and without student loan debt. That logic is flawed, however, when taking into account the fact that blue-collar jobs are declining in favor of white-collar ones. A young man making a lifelong career decision today simply cannot predict what educational demands will be placed on his field in another 10, 20 or 30 years.

Money aside, there are other pitfalls in a disproportionate number of men going to college. Statistics show that marriages where the couples have differing education levels more often end in divorce than couples with the same educational achievements. And even before divorce is an option, women who set college educational goals may not want to settle for men with less motivation – at least when it comes to academics. If this trend continues, social dynamics may be impacted.

And it’s not just men who might be left in the dust.

One complaint with the United States Department of Education and another lawsuit against Harvard University claims that Harvard, along with other elite universities, are levying unfair admission standards against Asian-Americans based on their race.

The groups, which consist of at least 60 coalitions, state that Asian-Americans are held to a higher standard because they have higher test scores and better “overall academic achievement” than other racial groups.

According to the Washington Post, the complaint with the Dept. of Education states that Asian-American students “have the lowest acceptance rates at Harvard University…despite having some of the highest test scores.”

The lawsuit, filed by Students for Fair Admissions, alleges that Harvard violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. That section bans prejudice based on “race, color, and national origin.” The group says that the discrimination happens at all Ivy League higher education institutions and that data suggests that Ivy League schools were being discriminatory based on the number of Asian-Americans applying to those schools, specifically Harvard, and “the number of Asians Harvard was admitting.”

A lot going on with both claims as they seem to be based on a sort of reverse discrimination. Asian-American students are seen as over achievers, and if the complaint alleging that their test scores are among the highest of student applicants, then the accusations are at least worth exploring.

Defining racial discrimination in case where minority students are claiming inequity because of academic achievement sounds almost outlandish. It may also be tough to prove without sound proof and stringent data.

But a case where any set of minorities feels left out of the possibility of attaining a post-secondary education due to their skin color or heritage will likely solicit strong reactions from those against any form of Affirmative Action and legal counsel from the accused institutions.

With this situation, the waters may be a little murky because Harvard is a private institution of higher education. Attempting to force the rationale of adding diversity for the sake of variety may not work out so well. Harvard, for its part, has, of course, admitted Asian-American students and will continue to do.

The question is are they admitting too little a number, and if so, is there a racial quota?

Either way, watching this play out shall be interesting because of the implications that it may have for other private schools and their admission policies.

The shocking truth about diversity in college faculty

As I mentioned before, college campuses are more diverse now than ever. Nearly 30 percent of undergraduate students around the nation are considered minorities. However, that diversity mainly happens in the student bodies of schools.

Diversity in college professors and faculty? That’s, unfortunately, not as common.

According to the National Center for Educational Statistics, only 16 percent of full-time professors at post-secondary institutions are minorities. That means that 84 percent of those in full-time professorships are white, 60 percent are men and 25 percent are white women.

Those numbers decrease slightly with faculty. 79 percent of the “instructional faculty” within this nation’s colleges and universities are white and just six percent are black.

Considering the hiring boom that many schools have experienced since the start of the 1990’s, it’s surprising that not many minorities were included in that growth.

“The Condition of Education: Characteristics of Post-secondary Faculty” shows that there was a 42 percent increase in the number of instructional faculty hired from 1991-2011. During that 20 year period, not many institutions hired minorities to fill their vacant positions.

Outside of ethnicity and growth, the study also found that the wage gender gap between men and women professors was well north of $16,000. Less than half of America’s private and non-private post-secondary institutions had tenure systems, faculty at for-profit colleges and universities make far less than those at non-profit schools, and less than 10 percent of all faculty within higher education are employed at for-profit institutions.

What’s striking is the gross under-representation of minority professors at America’s higher education schools. While many may be concentrated within Historically Black Colleges and Universities or schools who have a high number of black students, that percentage makes barely a dent in the overall number of black, Asian, Hispanic, American indigenous who may teach at America’s best schools of higher learning.

So what’s going on here?

Faculty positions are extremely competitive. Colleges and universities often value professors that have publishing ability, or a strong past of publication, over actual teaching methods. This is not to say that there are not women and minorities with high qualifications but rather to point out that sometimes sex and race are simply not part of the hiring equation. Facts and figures on a resume are tangible ways to show what a particular candidate can bring to the job. It is more difficult for higher education decision makers to gauge the benefit of a person’s background or life experience on the students that pay good money to learn at a particular institution.

And then sometimes there are biases that affect professors who do not fit the traditional mold—both before they are hired and after they have broken into the field. For example, a study published by Vanderbilt University found that black faculty members are not only wanted for intellectual purposes but to entertain as well. Apparently being an expert in a field is not enough; these professors must step it up to pass the general public’s test for being a “good” teacher.

“Black faculty members are expected to be ‘entertaining’ when presenting academic research to mostly white peers, according to a new Vanderbilt study.”

The survey shows that black academics are expected to tell jokes and keep their presentations loaded with levity.

It gets worse for black women who are academics.

“Black females additionally noted being subject to their colleagues’ preoccupation with their clothing choices and hairstyle, and reported being admonished to play down their ‘passion’ and ‘smile more.’”

Many black men and women face these issues in the workforce in general—but they are amplified in higher education, where African Americans represent only nine percent of the field.

One of the authors of the study, Ebony McGee, is hopeful that the study will be used as a way to potentially train others in accepting workplace diversity.

“Our hope is that this study will offer novel and useful insights to those who organize presentations and those who give them, so they will be able to understand, appreciate and provide an improved experience for black and other minoritized scholars.”

Here’s the good news

Many colleges are stepping up their diverse hiring game. Schools like the University of California, Harvard and the University of Washington both study faculty diversity issues and try to piece together the most well-represented group of educators possible. Even Historically Black Colleges and Universities are trying to bring in students and faculty members outside the traditional population, especially since the original mission of those schools has changed. Certainly there are strides being made, but in order to best serve each generation of college students, the push for faculty diversity needs to continue on an upward path.

Looking at the big picture, diversity in faculty should not only be sought out for the students’ advantage. The college legacy as a whole benefits when many different perspectives are represented. Yes, it is important to have diversity in student populations, but those groups are temporary college residents. Faculty members have the long-term ability to shape the campus culture and make it more in sync with the rest of the real world.

And even more good news: the newest wave of college presidents is ready to retire.

What does this mean? It means there’s a chance to introduce diversity in the highest ranks of higher education.

As the latest wave of college presidents looks towards retirement, the higher education community has the opportunity to promote a more diverse presidential core. The next five years will set the tone for college leadership at the highest level for the coming decades and really for the entire student population too.

Here are the facts:

  • 61. Average age of college presidents in 2011.
    • 92. Percentage of college presidents aged in the mid-50s to mid-70s.
    • 14. Average number of years that retiring college presidents serve in the role.
    • 40. Normal number of new college presidents in the American Association of State Colleges and Universities every year.
    • 109. Actual number of new college presidents from April 2011 to August 2012.
    • 6. Number of new college presidents this school year in the California State system alone.
    • 13. Percentage of college presidents who are racial or ethnic minorities, as of 2012.
    • 14. Percentage of college presidents who were racial or ethnic minorities in 2006.
    • 26. Percentage of women college presidents.

What makes someone qualified to be a college president?

In the past, college presidents from other schools and college vice presidents have most often ascended the ranks to fill empty presidential seats. While this still happens about 19 and 25 percent of the time, respectively, other leaders like provosts and deans are increasingly being considered to fill the college president vacancies. Some schools even search outside the college community to find leaders from other industries that fit the bill. There is really no hiring formula that applies to all college president spots and a “qualified” candidate could feasibly jump several levels of hierarchy to claim the spot.

How to encourage diversity in presidential ranks:

The first step to building diversity at the highest college administrative level is simply recognizing the opportunity at hand. American institutions of higher education often consider how a diverse student, and even faculty, population should look but do not extend that to top-tier leadership roles. Colleges need to rethink that strategy. I believe the trickle-down diversity effect works well in college settings. Instead of starting with the largest group (students), start cultural change at the top of the pyramid. If a school has a well-balanced student population already in place, chances are that the faculty and administration reflect that fact too.

The next step is to actively include diversity in the search process. I’m not saying that white men with the right qualifications should be excluded from the running; I just mean that colleges with open president seats should make sure the short list of candidates has some variety in experience, ethnicity, sex and race. The Rooney Rule, established in 2003 by the NFL, mandates that at least one minority candidate be interviewed for all head coaching spots. I think colleges need to do that same with their academic leaders.

Those in lower to middle-level leadership roles in colleges that have presidential aspirations should get ready now. Make sure your name is associated with talks about the future of the college by getting yourself involved in the action. Get published. Envision yourself on the same plane as the college presidents that went before you but realize that you have a unique voice to lend to the college community you want to lead. Embrace the turning tides. Be an active part of the changes in college administration and you will in turn be part of the progress.

For the rest of us, who are not in leadership roles in colleges, but who want to see more diversity in professors and college presidents, now is the time to push for change, and to bring awareness to the lack of diversity in higher education faculty.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Higher Education

What Professor Esolen Gets Right about Diversity, Faith

History professor Anthony Esolen recently came under fire when he penned an article for Crisis magazine that questioned the push for diversity at his workplace, Catholic institution Providence College. The piece “Ideology is the Enemy of True Faith” criticizes Providence College and the entire Catholic community when it comes to enthusiasm for the rights of the LGBTQ+ community and more.

Among other accusations, Esolen said that the college is on the diversity bandwagon (to paraphrase) and that the popular views its taking run directly against Catholic doctrine. Specifically, Esolen mentions the need to uphold traditional heterosexual marriage because that is truly what moves diversity forward through reproduction.

Needless to say, Esolen’s words have triggered a firestorm of criticism, launched a petition against him from the Black Studies department at Providence, and even incited a public rebuke from the college president. In interviews with other news sources, Esolen has defended his position, saying that those who disagree aren’t really Catholics anyway (another paraphrase).

Esolen’s position certainly rings of prejudice when first read and of course, he won’t be leading any diversity workshops anywhere any time soon. His bold statements though may do more to advance diversity on college settings than harm it. Here’s what his stance, and the response against it, can teach us about our own campus diversity programs:

Diversity IS a buzz word.

Without action, diversity is just a pointless word that is slapped on college promotional materials for appearances. A college or university that uses diversity for shallow reasons or out of obligation is not one that is doing its part to really further the opportunities for all students. Esolen says that promotion of diversity of certain groups of students run afoul to Catholic ideology and he’s right. Can Catholic colleges, then, truly claim that they provide diverse options for all students if certain ones – like those in the LGBTQ+ community – are marginalized in the basic doctrine of the church that sponsors the school? Schools cannot gloss over the facts when it comes to diversity. If you foster a spirit of acceptance and believe in opportunities for all, spell it out specifically in your mission statement. If those college beliefs don’t match the sponsoring institution (a church for example) then clearly outline how you are separate from that set of convictions.

Professors should hold opposing views.

At least some of them. Higher education institutions are the premiere spots for advanced thought in our nation. It’s why so much innovation comes from these campuses and why students who enter as young, naïve adults leave as educated and aware ones. A professor who doesn’t agree with campus policy has the right to dispute it. Does Esolen deserve the criticism coming his way from his colleagues and students at the college? Absolutely and he likely expected it. Does he deserve to lose his job over it? I’d argue no, he does not.

If we start taking away peoples’ livelihoods because they question things, then what sort of precedent are we setting? I think a university can denounce the words of a professor like Esolen but still keep him employed. As long as he is teaching the subject at hand (Western Civilization and Renaissance English Literature, in his case) and following the benchmarks of his job then he’s fulfilling those duties. We cannot silence or punish every person who says things we don’t like. Learning to dig in more deeply with our own beliefs, however, is a valuable lesson that lasts well beyond college years.

Religion can fuel discrimination.

While the church community, particularly in America, does much to benefit the lives of citizens worldwide, it’s important to acknowledge the parts of different doctrines that do not align with diversity. The role that religion (of all kinds) plays in world view of its members matters on college settings. Even public institutions must face the ramifications of this learning that is embedded over nearly two decades before students strike out on their own as adults. Religion plays a role in how students view their peers – and how professors view their students. Colleges must be aware of that fact and work to unite students, faculty and the greater community beyond religious lines.

Sometimes something unexpected brings out the best in people – which I think will be the case ultimately with Esolen’s article. His views have already called to action people who disagree and brought about an important conversation about diversity at Providence College and throughout the nation. What we do with that conversation determines its positive impact, despite the negativity associated with the original words.

 

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in EdTech & Innovation, Education News, Teachers

Helping Students to Develop Presentation Skills

Show and Tell

As a young mom I was not familiar with the concept of “show and tell”. My eldest son was 4 years old at the time and he had to take a toy to school and show it to the class, tell them a little bit about it and answer the eager audience’s questions. I thought this is such a great idea to introduce children to the world of public speaking and presentations! After all, public speaking is not necessarily a talent, but a skill, and the younger a child is when they begin to learn this skill, the better.

Apart from being mom, I am also a sixth form teacher and am too well-aware that some students genuinely struggle when asked to present information to a group. I can see that this may be a problem when students go on to tertiary education and also later in life. For personal and professional success, effective presentation skills delivered in a confident manner are vital.

That is why presentation skills need to be nurtured from a young age, before the student really has an awareness of being in the spotlight and possibly being faced with stage fright. Public speaking and presentation skills could be fostered, to such an extent that it becomes a natural skill. “Show and tell” helps a child to prepare a talk about an abstract object rather than a familiar one, it helps to create an awareness of vocal projection and most importantly, it helps to build confidence.

Spotlight 

By the time my second son had to do “show and tell”, we had perfected the practice! We progressed from showing (and telling about) favorite toys, to eventually using PowerPoint. By now, my sons were 8 and 10 and their confidence surprised their teachers. “Show and tell” helped to build their public speaking skills and helped them to feel comfortable with talking in front of a group of peers! However, they were also confident because every time that they were expected to present information to the class, they were well prepared. Confidence and preparation are crucial aspects for effective presentation!

My 7 year old daughter has to talk about her summer holidays in class soon. I know that if she is well prepared, she will feel confident and be able to do a good presentation. She was super excited when I suggested that she make a mysimpleshow video to introduce her holiday experience. Afterwards she will also show holiday photographs and talk about each of them. I know that if the presentation goes well, she will be more confident and keen to do a presentation when she gets her next spotlight topic.

Presentations

When asked about the basics of speech making, my advice to students and parents is simple:

  1. Prepare the speech/presentation very well – plan carefully what you’ll say and use speech cards with highlighted keywords
  2. Practice the presentation a few times – if possible, do it in front of a test audience, like your family
  3. Pay attention to proper posture – be mindful of weird mannerisms that may distract the audience
  4. Make eye contact
  5. Speak loudly and clearly
  6. Be confident! If the audience senses that you are nervous, they will also be nervous

My advice to teachers?

If you are teaching little ones:

  • Keep the “show and tell” and spotlight going from a young age. It does wonders to build confidence!

If you are teaching older students:

  • Regularly include short student presentations in your classes to emphasize the basics of speech making
  • Suggest various ways to make presentations more interesting to an audience, like the use of objects or the showing of short video clips as part of the presentation.

Educators play a vital role in helping students to learn and experience public speaking. Leadership in the community, business world or any organization demands effective presentation skills. Leaders are expected to be able to make presentations without any qualms. So, let’s foster great presentation skills from a young age and right through our students’ school careers, to ensure that they acquire a skill that will be very useful to them throughout their lives.    

LGW Irvine is a secondary school teacher specializing in history, performing arts and languages. With a keen interest in writing, she has published Teacher Planners and an AFL Teacher Handbook. Among her presentations include in-depth courses in study methods and essay writing, as she has a particular interest in helping others to reach their full potential in those areas. Her current projects include History Revision Guides as well as Study Methods workbooks.

Contact Information

Simpleshow gmbh

mysimpleshow.com

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Policy & Reform, Teachers

How Did We Get Here? Part V: Public Education as a National Need

This is one of a multi-part series on the progression of education policies in the U.S. from its founding. Click here to see a list of all the posts in this series. 

By Matthew Lynch

By the early 1900s the idea that every American child had the right to an education had gained mass adoption. Even students destined for a life in the mines, or on the railroads, deserved basic spelling, arithmetic and science lessons. Public schools were a place to absorb the common learning priorities that other students were also absorbing throughout the country. This view of public schools gave all children (at least the white ones) an equitable start in life, at least when it came to actual curriculum presented. School as a national pastime was established with the sole purpose of giving students base knowledge. From there, the students were free to carve out the lives they wanted, or follow in a predetermined path based on family or geographic limitations.

Just after the start of the 20th century, a new public education ideology began to emerge that hinted that schools should be utilized as more than spots to memorize facts. According to reformers like University of Chicago professor John Dewey, public schools needed to serve a greater good – for the individual and the country. Dewey was a figurehead of the Progressive Movement that insisted schools be socially conscious places where more than book learning took place.

While Dewey’s theories were widely known and discussed, they did not see much realization in the height of his popularity. Much like the public school districts of today, Dewey faced bureaucratic red tape at every turn and an unfriendly approach to change. In the eyes of educators, schools were established for learning what was written in a textbook, not for any other purposes, particularly ones that could easily be duplicated in homes.

Though slow to gain adoption in his own time, Dewey’s theories of public schools as socializers, and agents of change for the better, are certainly evident in school systems today. Consider public awareness campaigns, like First Lady Nancy Reagan’s “Just Say No” initiative that infiltrated schools in the 1980s, or the emphasis on Earth Day every April in public schools throughout the nation, or First Lady Michelle Obama’s current Let’s Move campaign that offers specific health awareness programs to schools. In the U.S., schools are the front lines for initiating change in behaviors as a nation and telling (more so than showing) students what is “right” or “wrong” in cultural terms.

Along with the base, common knowledge that accompanies the facts in textbooks, K-12 students in America are expected to know a set parameter of life truths before they graduate, or decide to drop out, like: smoking will kill you, drugs will kill you, obesity will kill you, taking care of the environment is not an option, stealing is bad, going to jail is bad, lying is bad, and cheating is bad too. Though not religious institutions, public schools have transformed in the past century from agents of factual information to ethics-infused entities. It is not enough for students to pass a test at the end of each grade and at the end of a K-12 career; to be true contributors to society, they must have moral compasses and understand the responsibilities of citizenship.

Of course some schools are better at this than others. In areas impacted by high poverty and crime rates, it is more difficult to graduate students who rise above their circumstances. Even middle- and upper-class school districts have their own bad apples. Still, these students are certainly aware of the right and wrong ways to live their lives, at least in theory, though they may not truly believe those truths themselves. Dewey would certainly be proud of the approach of public schools when it comes to socially conscious behaviors, if not disappointed by the outcomes of such efforts.

Though his theories were not particularly political, Dewey’s ethically-minded approach fed into the nation’s thirst for patriotism. Part of contributing to society was loving it and all its symbolism too. Consider the morning ritual of every public school in the nation since the early 1920s: reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. In his young adult fiction novel Nothing But the Truth, author Avi challenges patriotic rituals in public schools through the character of a young man who refuses to quietly listen as “The Star-Spangled Banner” plays in his classroom. The boy becomes a national celebrity, with both supporters and detractors. The supporters believe he was trying to sing along and should be celebrated for that fact. The detractors say he didn’t show enough respect for the song by refusing to stay silent as it played. On the final page of the book, the boy is asked to sing the National Anthem on a radio talk show and he admits he doesn’t know the words. The point then of the novel is that much of what students learn, at least when it comes to patriotism, is not based on an intrinsic loyalty but on one that is imposed.

The same can be said of the other ethics-based lessons that are part of American public schools today. The principles that constitute being a good citizen are just that: suggestions for living, not commands. Students are still guided by their own free will, though aware of the consequences. The idea, however, that schools should at least be presenting a socially conscious agenda started in the early-to-mid 20th century and still permeates K-12 public school classrooms today. Follow my series on the progress of the U.S. educational system to learn more about where we’ve been, and where we need to go, as collective educators.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in HBCU's, Higher Education

Are HBCUs Under Attack? How Historically Black Colleges and Universities Can Stay Afloat in Today’s Landscape

If you haven’t been paying much attention to the debate concerning the relevance and effectiveness of historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs), now is the time to sit up and take notice. If you don’t, there is a chance it could soon be too late. Over the last two decades, we have seen the number of HBCUs in the United States sharply decline.

This greatly concerns me. We need to take a moment to look at why people should pull together, rally around them, and help them make it through turbulent economic times. HBCUs have helped to educate some of the most prominent African American figures in this country’s history, including Jesse Jackson, Samuel L. Jackson, Martin Luther King Jr., Spike Lee, and Thurgood Marshall, among many others.

HBCUs provide cultural benefits, as well as providing an affordable education. This cultural foundation has been important to the African American community for over a century. HBCUs were there, supporting the community and educating many hardworking and productive citizens, long before other colleges would even let them through the door.

If you believe in the benefits of HBCUs, you need to stand up and let your voice be heard, before these important institutions are gone forever.

What’s happening, exactly?

HBCUs are coming under fire for everything from not improving their failing infrastructures to producing lower graduation rates, and more. Let’s take a closer look at some of the issues that HBCUs are currently facing.

Why HBCUs are underfunded—and why this matters

By way of a study published in Newsweek, “fundraising is a major problem for HBCUs.”

The study gives a comparison of the two of the nation’s “richest” schools regarding how they are sectioned. Howard University receives nearly $590 million from the government, which on the surface, seems like a lot of money.

But compared to the funding that Brown University receives, Howard is dwarfed. Brown is on the receiving end of over $3 billion in government funding each year.

Brown has a bustling alumni base that donates generously. Not saying that Howard doesn’t as they certainly have proud alumni. The differences are hard to miss.

Note that the lack of funding goes beyond alumni donations. Until she later amended it, presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton’s education plan would have undermined the funding of some HBCUs and would likely force a few to close.

“Free tuition to any community college and reduced tuition to public institutions, will expedite the extinction of several HBCUs. Without federal and state investment in public historically black campuses which lack unique programs, modernized facilities and marketing resources, students of all races will flock to larger, more developed predominantly white colleges.”

In essence, plans presented by Clinton and other candidates who lean left would take federal and state money used to aid HBCUs and refocus the dollars towards a general fund that will help schools that traditionally serve the general population.

Hypothetically, schools that aren’t necessarily in need of more federal assistance would receive extra dollars, and some HBCUs would be left in the cold.

Another issue that affects the amount of money HBCUs gets? In October of 2011, the U.S. Department of Education adjusted its lending policies for these popular, and in many cases necessary, loans to align more closely with what a traditional bank would require in the way of income and credit worthiness. All colleges took a hit with these changes, but HBCUs lost an estimated $50 million in the first full year these changes took place. For many HBCUs, the college population is made up of first-generation students with parents who often have not set aside the funding for a college education, but want to contribute financially. When PLUS loan eligibility changed, it felt like a blow directed at HBCUs.

And sometimes, the problem is just plain money mismanagement

Take Cheyney University, for example. In 2015, the country’s oldest HBCU owed the federal government nearly $30 million, according to nonprofitquarterly.org.

“[A] review conducted for the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education found that the school may have mismanaged the financial aid it receives from the U.S. Department of Education to assist students and, as a result, may owe the federal government more than $29 million.”

The article goes on to state that the school gave grants and loans to students who weren’t eligible. They also gave out too much money.

News for Cheyney isn’t getting better. The school currently carries a deficit of at least $15 million with an annual budget of $30 million. Paying back $29 million would bring the school to its knees.

Pennsylvania’s Auditor General Eugene DePasquale issued a report on the school’s future last year, and it was rather bleak.

“The size of its debt that is deemed not collectible is growing. The amount of state support it receives is on the decline. And its enrollment has hit a 31-year low.”

The report also noted that just nine percent of students who enroll at Cheyney stay for graduation.

Simply put, Cheyney is in deep trouble

Without serious financial help from alumni, the state, or the federal government, Cheyney’s 177-year history will soon come to a quick close.

All these financial issues cause a ripple effect, which leads to other issues, such as…

School closures. Lately, it seems there are just too many HBCUs in the news for the wrong reason: financial and accreditation woes that threaten, or deliver, closure.

For example, on June 3, 2014, Saint Paul’s College officials announced that it planned to close its doors – at least temporarily. The news followed a proposed merger with Saint Augustine’s University that fell through. After 125 years, the rural school that employs roughly 75 people in the community of Lawrenceville, Virginia had no choice but to close its doors to new students and help current ones find placement elsewhere.

After several years of highly-publicized financial problems, Morris Brown College turned down a bailout from the city of Atlanta in June that would have eliminated its bankruptcy troubles. In August, Morris Brown filed for federal bankruptcy protection to prevent foreclosure. Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed and other city officials were more than a little surprised when the school rejected the $10 million offer that was designed to benefit the city too.  A Morris Brown lawyer said the rejection is due to the school receiving an undisclosed, better offer from somewhere else. For now, though, Morris Brown is still $35 million in over its head, by some accounts.

Mergers. It’s not at all unusual to hear governors and former governors like Louisiana’s Bobby Jindal and Mississippi’s Haley Barbour announce plans to merge HBCUs with each other or other predominantly white institutions in moves that are intended to slash state operating costs.

In less than stunning news, the Georgia Board of Regents has decided to merge Historically Black College (HBCU) Albany State University with Predominately White Institution (PWI) Darton State College.

The new school will boast close to 9,000 students and will retain the name Albany State University.

While the move to combine two state colleges isn’t shocking, it did take some by surprise that the board decided to merge an HBCU and a PWI. In recent years we’ve seen HBCUs merging to keep their cultures intact, but not shutter their doors, but the move in Georgia doesn’t follow that path.

According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, the move was partially made because of declining enrollment at both institutions.

“Both schools have faced enrollment declines in recent years. Albany State’s enrollment has dropped 25 percent in five years; Darton has seen a 14 percent enrollment decline since its peak in 2012.”

The Journal also reports that the school will become Southwest Georgia’s largest college.

Even without the declining enrollment figures, some have concerns that Albany State will lose its culture and identity by merging with a PWI. Hank Huckaby, chancellor of University system of Georgia, says that Albany State’s history and culture will not be compromised due to the merger (but he didn’t give specifics on how that will happen).

This announcement is not the first on merger in the state

A merger between Kennesaw State and Southern Polytechnic State universities was finalized earlier this year. The largest merger between Georgia State University and Georgia Perimeter College is in the works now.

Treating any two HBCUs as institutions that are alike enough to merge without incident is flawed, though. Planning to merge an HBCU with a predominantly white schools is even more off-base. These individual schools have their histories, their student cultures. Perhaps it makes financial sense to merge HBCUs with others similar in size or scope, but it undermines the collective institutions, undercutting their autonomy and what they can offer to potential students.

When students can no longer afford to go to school

And the consequences for lack of financial support HBCUs are receiving continue.

Take the general lack of affordability for students, for example. HBCUs have a legacy of providing affordable education to students. However, with many of the funding issues, HBCUs have been suffering. Lately, it’s harder for these colleges and universities to offer students the financial aid that they once generously provided.

Then, when it turns out that college graduates from HBCUs cannot make a return on their investment, the situation seems even worse.

According to a report, the starting salary for a new college graduate from an HBCU may not be enough to cover student loan debt.

By way of an article on Chron.com, the class of 2015 was projected to have about $35,000 in student loan debt upon graduation. That’s $7,000 more than what the class of 2013 will owe.

Of course, to pay back the loan, students have to have jobs that will afford them that opportunity.

So to look at how debt and income will factor into the financial success that students may have post-graduation, Edsmart.org found that some students who attend HBCU’s may struggle economically. It is a recipe for disaster when students can’t afford college when they start OR afford to pay it back when they graduate.

Not all students from HBCUs suffer this fate, however. The report shows that the average starting salary for new graduates out of Bethune-Cookman University comes in at just $38,700. That’s just $3,000 more than the average debt that students may carry. However, the in-state tuition and fees for BCU is a reasonable $14,410.

It gets even better if students attend Florida A&M University. Tuition for in-state students is just $5,785, $17,725 for out-of-state, and students project to make a little over $42,300 after graduation.

Other schools where students can expect to earn more include Xavier University, Howard University, Hampton University, and Tennessee State University.

While the salaries vary, and so will the debt per student, knowing that your earning potential fresh out of college may hover around $50,000 per year may take the sting away from having to pay the government back for your education.

It’s not just about the money, though…

There are other problems that may keep HBCUs from thriving in today’s world.

And, certainly, although HBCUs have fallen on hard times, they cannot completely play the role of victim, either. I’m a Dean at an HBCU and completely believe in the message – but even I can see that there are things we do collectively that are hurting our student populations and chances for longevity. We need to change that, together, and that starts with recognizing where we have made mistakes.

Slow adaptability. We’ve spent too much time wringing our hands and not enough time looking for solutions. Why were predominantly white institutions better prepared when the PLUS loan changes took place? Could we not have come up with our solutions too? When it comes to online schooling – most HBCUs are just finally implementing full-degree online programs and embracing the idea that our students don’t need to be on a physical campus to benefit. Yes, the campuses of HBCUs are their biggest advantages, steeped in history and a palpable air of shared struggle. This doesn’t mean we should force our students to set foot on our campuses, or not come at all. The inability to move quickly and keep up with the higher education times has hurt HBCUs but hopefully not permanently.

Lack of diversity. HBCUs are getting better at recruiting all students to their campuses and programs, but this is another area where we’ve done too little, too late. HBCUs are no longer the only option for students of color and haven’t been for decades. So why have we spent so little time rebranding ourselves as institutions that welcome all students and help those students succeed? The number of Latino, white and Asian students on HBCU campuses is rising slowly, but relying on our historically largest segment of students (after it became clear they did not need us as much as we needed them) has hurt us.

Lack of stability in administration. Over the past decade, too many HBCU presidents have seemingly disappeared in the middle of the night without explanation. South Carolina State University, for example, has seen 11 different presidents since 1992 but why? Often the answer lies in the fact that a board of trustees clings to the past, or spends too much time micromanaging and not enough looking at the future and big picture of the HBCU landscape. Such instability at the top cannot inspire confidence for faculty or students. To plant roots for the future, there needs to be consistent leadership that aligns with the long-term goals of the HBCU.

Not appreciating students. This may sound petty, but alumni who do not feel that their universities gave them a world-class education, or at the very least an adequate one, are less likely to give back financially. This hurts HBCUs more than PWIs, I think. An essay was written by an HBCU graduate who declined to name her school specifically expressed shock at the under-sophisticated classrooms and technology resources at her HBCU. While she points out the social atmosphere was top-notch and ultimately the reason she stayed until graduation, she says she would rather see her former school be shuttered than donate money to it. This is only one story, of course, but it rings true with other graduates I’ve met and read who believe they received a sub-par educational experience at an HBCU (sometimes on very basic levels) and who have no desire to donate money back. This is no way to maintain long-term student pride or bring in future students.

How can we bring HBCUs back to prominence?

Fortunately, there are many solutions that can help HBCUs rise to prominence once again. But those of us who support the continued existence of HBCUs will need to seek radical solutions so that we can see these institutions thrive again.

One of the most impactful ways we can help HBCUs thrive is by making sure they have the funds to do so. And how might that work? The solution is simple: alumni giving.

HBCU graduates are some of the proudest in the country, often with a stronger sense of social responsibility than their PWI-graduate peers. HBCUs aren’t doing a strong enough job tying that pride back into alumni giving programs. Case in point: Harvard raised a record-breaking $752 million in alumni and other gifts in the fiscal year 2013. At HBCU “Black Ivy League” Spelman College saw just $157.8 million ($20 million from alumni) during its Every Woman Every Campaign in 2013 that was a special, targeted campaign beyond normal annual endeavors.

Perhaps comparing Harvard’s financial gifts to any other school isn’t completely fair, but it does give an idea of what HBCUs are up against in the non-elite college market. If Spelman, considered the “best” HBCU, can only bring in one-fifth of the giving of Harvard in a year when Spelman aggressively went after donations, what does that say for every other HBCU?

An even better question is this: What can HBCU alumni giving campaigns improve upon to bring in more dollars to benefit their current crop of students?

Make college affordable

Even the best college education will come with resentment attached once a student has to start paying back those burdensome loans. HBCUs have a better shot at alumni giving back once a college education is paid off, so why not make that debt burden lighter? HBCUs have some of the best statistics when it comes to financial aid in the form of Pell grants and scholarships, and these institutions should continue to push for the funding to make obtaining a degree affordable – particularly for minority and first-generation college students. More money in these graduates’ pockets will translate into more alumni giving in the early years following graduation.

Personalize giving

I don’t know about you, but getting standard alumni giving form in the mail with a return envelope does not usually inspire me to pull out my checkbook. The same is true of emails without much personality. Instead of just asking for the money, HBCUs need to put faces and causes along with the requests. What are some of the upcoming projects that this money could go towards? Who will receive scholarships from this giving? Even non-glamorous giving campaigns that go towards basic infrastructure have a better shot of meeting goals if alumni are informed of what money is being solicited to do. HBCU alumni who can associate their positive memories with money-making campaigns are more likely to want to be a part of making those things happen.

Get alumni involved before they leave campus

Don’t wait until students are off campus to solicit them for help with facilitating the college experience of the classes who follow them. Cash in on the good feelings that accompany graduation time from both the students earning degrees and their families. Even those who don’t have much may be willing to give a little to keeping the college dream alive for other students who are still trying to accomplish their academic goals. Set up a table outside commencement with giving forms and other alumni information. Have literature that explains to students how alumni giving dollars have facilitated what they’ve enjoyed while on campus. Send out an email blast to soon-to-be graduates inviting them to visit the alumni website, like its Facebook page, and join its official club. Don’t wait to chase alumni down after they’ve left; rope them in before they leave and keep them active in the coming years.

Just as HBCUs have a responsibility to get their student’s workforce-ready, alumni have a responsibility to give back to their institutions. HBCUs need to do a better job of conveying that, though and encouraging former students to step up to the plate.

Another way to build up HBCUs is to embrace diversity and innovation

When HBCUs began popping up in America, they were a necessity to higher educational paths for African American young people. Benefactors like John Rockefeller founded Spelman College in Atlanta (named after his wife, by the way) to give black students shot in a nation still very much in the throes of Jim Crow law domination. Most of the 105 HBCUs were founded in former slave areas that still presented steep challenges for African Americans that aspired to higher education but faced discrimination in dominantly white college settings.

The original intent of HBCUs worked. Some of the nation’s brightest and most influential minds came out of HBCUs. Langston Hughes was a Lincoln University graduate. Martin Luther King Jr. earned his degree from Morehouse College. Talk show queen Oprah Winfrey, education expert Marva Collins and Brown University President Ruth J. Simmons all earned degrees from HBCUs (from Tennessee State University, Clark Atlanta University, and Dillard University, respectively). These powerful pillars of the African American community were able to achieve optimal success in life because of the education they received from HBCUs.

But what about now? With white students quickly becoming one small aspect of on-HBCU settings, do ambitious African American students need an HBCU to achieve success? Perhaps a more poignant question is this: does it help or hinder the African American community when its members attend an HBCU today?

I think the answer is grounded in the particular student’s intent. Young African Americans today do not NEED an HBCU to obtain a general education, but they may find particular programs at individual schools meet their career objectives. Some may even find academic inspiration in the original founding purpose of an HBCU, and that feeling of carrying on tradition may fuel them to graduate, make an impact in the world and give back to their college or university.

The original purpose of HBCUs is no longer the only reason–but that does not mean that these institutions lack other attractive qualities. In fact, many students with white European, Latino or Asian roots are choosing HBCUs because of the strength of the academic programs and lower tuition costs. During the 2011 – 2012 school year, West Virginia State, Kentucky State and Delaware State universities all reported that more than 25 percent of their populations were made up of white Americans. A continued push for diversity on HBCU campuses is the only way these schools can transition from the necessity of the past to the potential of the future. This means implementing more online course options and flexible degree programs so that all students can picture themselves succeeding at an HBCU. Gratitude for the original intent of HBCUs combined with forward educational thinking for students of all heritages will carry HBCUs to the next level of achievement in higher learning circles.

One school that decided to use online course options to strengthen its program is North Carolina Agricultural & Technical. These online programs are geared towards growing the school’s enrollment figures.

According to Insidehighered.com, NC A&T’s online offerings will be cheaper than “face-to-face” courses for in-state students, and they plan to go after students outside of their traditional demographic.

“To help enrollment grow, we have to look at different mechanisms to engage students in general. We can’t solely focus on the traditional 18- to 22-year-old,” said Joe Whitehead, vice president for academic affairs.

By non-traditional students, A&T plans to market the online programs towards adults who work, military members, and “students who left college before they could graduate.”

Another marketing tool the school will use is that A&T is now the nation’s largest Historically Black College and University as it recently surpassed Florida Agricultural & Mechanical University in enrollment.

“Florida A&M’s enrollment has fallen; North Carolina A&T’s has hovered below 11,000 students for nearly a decade. This fall, once again, enrollment sits at 10,875, a slight increase of 141 from the previous year.”

Some HBCUs have attempted to offer online programs in the past but have fallen short. As of 2014, just 33 HBCU’s offered online programs and all aren’t jumping on the bandwagon.

By way of Edcentral.org, Spellman College has no interest in offering online courses now or in the future.

HBCUs are still attempting to navigate the terrain of online education, and are rightfully taking the time to ensure that student success is a top priority before going all in. Still, if HBCUs are places that cater to traditionally disadvantaged students, a move towards online programs seems to be the right direction.

Are HBCUs a lost cause?

In my home state of Mississippi, I grew up attending athletic and cultural functions at Tougaloo College, Alcorn State University, Mississippi Valley State University and Jackson State University. These universities are sources of great pride and a part of the African American intellectual tradition. Now is the time when people who support HBCUs, including advocates, organizations, faculty, students, and alumni, need to rally together to help save this historical piece of African American history. If these groups come together and make their voices heard, we will be able to save these institutions. But make no mistake, if there is no rally, if there is no coming together to let the powers-that-be know that we want them saved, then I predict that they will be gone in 50 or so years. And they will not return. Nobody is going to turn back the hands of time and open another historically black college or university because it wouldn’t be historic. Right now, they are historic, and they need our support and rescue!

Many people are currently asking whether HBCUs are worth saving in the first place. I ask, how can these historical institutions, which represent African American culture, tradition, and struggle for educational equality, not be considered worth saving? If they are not worth saving, then it makes it very difficult to find any other piece of African American heritage that is worth saving. These educational institutions are symbols of our people that must not be ignored.

I urge those who care about these institutions to speak out, show your support, and demand that adequate funding be provided to them so that they can make it through these turbulent economic times. It’s not just about saving a college or university. This is a metaphor for saving ourselves! With proper funding, these schools will thrive, carrying on our culture and traditions as they were meant to do.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Latest Posts