Pedagogue Blog

Matthew Lynch published in Higher Education, Special Report

Are College Payments Stealing America’s Livelihood?: The Forces Behind Skyrocketing College Costs

If it seems like college is more expensive than ever before—and with less return on investment than in previous generations—it’s not your imagination. Why is this happening? Find out in this chapter.

Consider this: today; a degree is a requirement for more entry-level jobs than before. This will be even truer in the future. In fact, according to the Committee for Economic Development, in 1965, just 11% of jobs required post-secondary training, but by 2020, 65% of U.S. jobs will require post-secondary training.

The problem is that those degrees are much more expensive than the degrees of ten or twenty years ago. This is even after taking inflation into account.

What’s happening? Are colleges inherently worth that much more than they have been in the past? While it’s true that the demand is higher, the truth is that there are many factors driving the costs of higher education in America. Here, you’ll see some of what’s going on behind the scenes. You will find out exactly what’s leading more students (and their parents) to take on hefty loans for a chance at success in life.

Is the federal government behind the rising cost of higher education?

According to Senator Elizabeth Warren, the answer is yes.

In 2015, she wrote a blistering letter to the Department of Education’s acting Education Secretary John King regarding how the department handles student loan fraud.

In the letter, Warren accuses the department of not having a proper handle on student loan contractors and specifically cites its relationship with Navient, formerly known as Sallie Mae.

In 2014, the Department of Education and Navient reached a settlement of $100 million due to Navient’s role in violating a federal law that pinches interest rates at 6% for service members.

Warren’s issue isn’t necessarily with the settlement; it’s that the department has failed to oversee its relationship with Navient.

As the company holds millions of student loans, the department’s relationship with Navient hasn’t been impacted even as the company was found to have broken the law.

Moving forward, Warren not only wants the department to reassess its position with Navient but wants to know why the company hasn’t been penalized further.

To put some fears to rest, the department launched an internal investigation into Navient’s loan practices and found that a small percentage of those who borrowed were not receiving the federally mandated rate.

Warren notes the Department of Education’s Inspector General revealed that the department’s internal investigation into Navient was flawed and erroneous.

Towards the end of the letter, Warren writes that the findings of an independent review of the department’s handling of student aid are that companies that are responsible for supervising student loan debt receive protection from the Department of Education when they break the law.

As students and former students grapple with how to pay back student loans and are harassed by the likes of companies like Navient, the information presented in Warren’s letter is damaging and sad.

If the Department of Education is indeed offering protection to companies that break the law and are failing to properly shelter students from these organizations, it proves why so many students have little faith in college affordability and the government’s role in helping them.

That’s not the only time Senator Warren has called out the Department of Education.

The Senator isn’t one to shy away from controversy, which is why it comes as no surprise that she’s railing against the United States Department of Education.

According to the New York Times, Warren held a press conference to talk about student loan debt and a system of “external checks” that would govern complaints against the department.

“We don’t trust a bank to handle its complaints, and we shouldn’t trust the federal student loan program to do it either,” Warren said according to the New York Times.

Warren criticized colleges and universities, the U.S. Department of Education, state legislatures, and more.

She said that outstanding student loan debt needs to be refinanced and that “college affordability and student debt” are issues that need to be included in the re-authorization of the Higher Education Act.

While Warren isn’t running for president, her words will likely resonate with voters on the left as she attempts to galvanize liberal and progressive voters ahead of the 2016 presidential election.

Her colleague in the Senate, Bernie Sanders, has an ambitious plan to regarding higher education, and that’s to make it free by taxing Wall Street.

Both lawmakers are talking about issues that many students and young Americans care about: making college more affordable or just making it free all together.

We’re likely pretty far off from giving away access to colleges and universities, but in the interim, the discussion surrounding the price of higher education and the debt that students carry is certainly worth having. We just need to ensure that the talk eventually turns into action that will help students.

Or could it be the state governments’ faults?

Former Education Secretary Arne Duncan in 2015 said that higher education in the United States needs more accountability and for schools to “deliver what they promise to students.”

According to the Washington Post, Duncan gave a speech at the University of Maryland Baltimore County where he made the calls for accountability and states to discontinue the “pattern of disinvestment.”

““[T]he widespread cutbacks that states have made in their higher education budgets desperately need to be reversed,” he said. “In all, 47 states cut per-student spending between 2009 and 2014, by an average of about 13 percent. Over the past 25 years, state per-student spending is down 25 percent, after adjusting for inflation! For each dollar states put in higher education today, the federal government invests more than two.”

Duncan, in essence, was saying that the federal government cannot continue to invest lost state dollars back into higher education because many states weren’t focusing on higher education as they should.

He also mentioned in the speech that changing the system, or the culture, will be tough to accomplish.

Duncan is correct in noting that the system will not change overnight.

What’s stopping change from happening? Let’s look more closely at what states prioritize today.

According to a report by the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 11 states spend more money on correctional facilities than public research universities.

The report outlines how many states have cut spending on higher education while increasing budgets for jails and prisons.

Higher education spending didn’t start to fall once the recession started. Funding for higher education in many states begins toppling back in 1990 from 14.6 percent to just 9.4 percent in 2014.

Michigan, Oregon, Arizona, Vermont, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Delaware, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Colorado, and Connecticut all failed to make the cut. Each state has a higher budget for jails and prisons than public research universities.

Adjusted for inflation, spending on elementary and secondary education increased by nearly 70 percent while corrections saw an increase of over 140 percent between 1986 and 2013.

In Michigan, nearly 25 percent of the state’s spending from general fund expenditures went towards corrections compared to just 15 percent on higher education.

The percentages are much closer in other states like Rhode Island and Delaware, but corrections spending still gets a larger percentage.

Oregon seems to be the worst defender. Less than 5 percent of general fund expenditures are dedicated to higher education, but the state spends nearly 15 percent of that money on correctional facilities.

The bottom line is that too many states invest in faux rehabilitation methods and not enough on student engagement. Imagine if we invested that money upfront in our troubled youth instead of putting it towards locking them up. It takes a fundamental understanding that it NEEDS to happen, though – something that is lacking in the U.S. education system.

Another cause for concern? Rising health care costs.

According to a study, there is a correlation between the rising cost of Medicaid and declined to spend on higher education. Created by Moody’s Analytics for The National Commission on Financing 21st Century Higher Education, the study suggests that state budgets will constrict spending on higher education because of the high cost of Medicaid.

Because money from the Affordable Care Act will start to slow by 2020, many states will have to allocate more funds for Medicaid, which in turn will cause a decrease in discretionary spending.

So, many states that are struggling with budget deficits or have deeply cut funding for higher education will likely face more financial issues.

The study portends that Medicaid will outrun state revenues. If that potential trend holds, then higher education truly is in trouble.

When colleges are the problem

For-profit schools have earned a reputation, and it’s not a favorable one, either.

For example, California Attorney General Kamala Harris filed a lawsuit against the company that operates the now-defunct for-profit Corinthian Colleges arguing that the organization left its students out to dry by saddling them with massive amounts of debt that many could not afford to pay back.

As a result, Corinthian Colleges Incorporated received a judgment against it of $1.17 billion to be paid to the State of California for illegal practices.

The school rewarded students with worthless degrees that many companies refused to recognize, leaving students without the ability to repay their exorbitant student loans.

So a California judge ruled for the state of California and ordered Corinthian Colleges Inc. to pay over $800 million in restitution to former students with the remaining amount going towards penalties.

This seems to be great news for students as they’ll have the ability to potentially receive some financial relief from student loans received while attending a Corinthian College.

But there may be a problem as Corinthian filed for bankruptcy last year, and by way of information from the company’s former attorney, Corinthian may not have to pay since it is no longer in operation.

No matter for the state and Harris, though, as her office has set up a website for students to visit to receive help and to gain information about the judgment.

Schools run by Corinthian Colleges Inc. operated under the umbrella of career colleges where students who wanted a college degree but didn’t have the time to absorb a traditional college schedule, could attend and receive a degree to help them receive better employment opportunities.

The company went after people of poor financial means and profited off of those individuals’ ability to receive student loans from the government and private lenders.

Corinthian likely received up to 90 percent of its funding from federal loan programs, so many of the schools were being fueled economically by the government and poor students.

Hopefully, students in California will be able to collect what was lost.

Corinthian Colleges is not the only school guilty for its mismanagement of funds.

In fact, more than 500 schools in the U.S. are among colleges being investigated. According to Insidehighered.com, the United States Department of Education is “closely monitoring a greater number of colleges and universities over concerns about their management of federal funds…”

Many of the schools on the list of potential colleges being investigated are “for-profit beauty and cosmetology schools.” These types of institutions have come under increased fire for their collection of federal funds to allow students to enroll. But many students at some for-profit schools have complained that their degrees are worthless and that they are left saddled with piles of student loan debt and no gainful employment to show for it. That, to me, is certainly cause for colleges to be investigated by the U.S. Department of Education.

Other for-profit schools listed include ITT Technical Institute, The Art Institutes, and South University.

For-profit schools aren’t languishing alone on this list, though. Cheyney University, a Historically Black College and University (HBCU), was placed on the department’s “most stringent form of monitoring over concerns with the institution’s ‘administrative capability.’”

Cheyney has faced financial trouble as of late due to a rise in deficits, a decrease in enrollment and a campus that is falling apart. That institutional erosion is due in part to moves made by Cheyney’s administration.

Students at any institution on the list of colleges being investigated may want to monitor the progress of the list as schools are removed or added periodically. This shows that the Department of Education is serious about ensuring that the education of students at these types of schools isn’t wasted on loans and empty job guarantees. It’s important that predatory institutions that do not implement the proper job placement and degree-use policies are called out, and if necessary, shut down.

Finally, it’s worth noting that schools need to be accountable not just for managing their funds, but for ensuring that their students finish school.

There are a lot of metrics in place to measure the effectiveness of P-12 schooling in the U.S.  Stats shine a particularly bright light on public schools, particularly when they are failing students. Dropout rates are just one of the factors taken into account when these numbers are calculated and tend to weigh heavily on the schools and districts who have low percentages.

However, the same does not seem to be true once the high school years pass. Compared to P-12 institutions, colleges and universities seemingly get a pass when it comes to dropout rates – perhaps because in the past, higher education was considered more of a privilege and less of a right. A college dropout was simply walking away from the assumed higher quality of life that came with the degree but still had opportunity to excel without it

That’s not the case anymore. As of 2013, 17.5 million students were enrolled in U.S. colleges and universities.  More than ever, colleges and universities have a responsibility to not simply admit students, but ensure they are guided properly to graduation. In other words, institutions of higher education should not be able to just take their student’s money and say “good luck.” They should provide the tools necessary for students to successfully achieve a college education and anticipate the issues that could prevent that.

Authors Ben Miller and Phuong Ly discussed the issue of the U.S. colleges with the worst graduation rates in their book College Dropout Factories. Within the pages, the authors encouraged educators at all levels to acknowledge that colleges and universities should share responsibility for successful or failing graduation rates and that the institutions with the worst rates should be shut down. Perhaps the most terrifying suggestion in the book (for colleges and universities) was that public institutions with low graduation rates would be subjected to reduced state funding.

The book was written based on findings from Washington Monthly that ranked the U.S. schools with the lowest six-year graduation rates among colleges and universities, including public ones like the University of the District of Columbia (8%), Haskell Indian Nations University (9%), Oglala Lakota College (11%), Texas Southern University (13%) and Chicago State University (13%). These stats were published in 2010, so they are not the most current available but a quick scan of the University of the District Columbia’s official page shows graduation rate numbers through the end of the 2003 – 2004 school year. The past nine years are nowhere to be found. The school boasts 51.2 percent underrepresented minorities in the study body, including 47 percent that are Black – but what good are those numbers if these students are not benefitting from their time in college because they receive no degree?

In the case of Chicago State University, the latest statistics show some improvement from the 2010 ones. The six-year graduation rate is up to 21 percent – but the transfer-out rate is nearly 30 percent. The school has 92 percent underrepresented minorities that attend – 86 percent who are black and 70 percent who are female – but again, what good does any of that do if these traditionally disadvantaged students are not graduating?

In all cases of college dropout factories, the P-12 institutions chalk up a victory on their end. They graduated the students and also saw them accepted into a college. What happens after that is between the students and their higher education choices.

This, to me, is a problem. The accountability for student success extends beyond the years that they are in P-12 classrooms. Graduation from high school, and acceptance into college, should never be the final goal of P-12 educators. That is not a victory. That is only halftime.

As far as the colleges and universities are concerned, higher accountability should be demanded from educators, students, parents and any Americans that want the best economy and highest-educated population. Public institutions, in particular, should be subject to restructuring or take over if dropout rates are too high. The lack of delivery on the college degree dream at many of these schools is appalling, frankly, and has gone on long enough.

They’re all making it worse

Evidently, it’s not just one person or one group causing all the issues.  This is a multifaceted problem…and it is one that will, unfortunately, price a lot of lower-income people out of their number one ticket for social mobility in America. It will be a shame if we cannot figure out how to fix a broken system.

 

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

How Did We Get Here? Part III: The Birth of the American Public School

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

There were public schools in America as far back as the mid-1600s in the Massachusetts Bay Colony but the first truly American public schools began appearing in Pennsylvania at the end of the 18th century. Money was no object as the even the poorest of citizens were welcomed through the schoolhouse doors and offered a public education. The New York Public School Society came soon after in 1805, and by 1870 all states had at least a minimal public program in place to educate students en masse. These programs were voluntary, though.

What was taught in these early schools varied by region but was grounded in a basic set of ground rules for bringing up American students right. Public education was meant to unite American families through a common interest: raising educated children who would soon be at the helm of the nation’s future. Basic education was not something reserved for the elite. Reading, writing and basic arithmetic were necessities of living as Americans and were important when it came to guiding the young nation.

The learning resources of early America were understandably limited. It was too early to have much variety in American-made textbooks or other learning tools. Much of what was used in these schools were texts developed in England and repurposed for American pursuits. The need for purely American educational texts did exist though, and slowly but surely they began to take shape.

In the 1780s, Noah Webster set out to create a textbook that would teach children the realities of spelling in the new land. Until that point, spelling textbooks were mainly imports from England that sought to teach kids the most unusual and difficult, yet least used, words in the English language. Webster saw the impracticality of this, and set out to change it. The American Spelling Book (shrunk down by Webster from a much longer, pompous title suggested by his editor) became a staple for learning in homes and the few organized educational models that existed. In accomplishing this, Webster established the first systematic method for learning in the young country that was practical, easy to navigate and widely used. Even as late as 1866, after many other spelling books had been written and updated, Webster’s original version was still selling 9 million copies annually.

In the early 1800s, several other publishing companies followed suit, piggybacking on the idea of nationalism through learning. Popular titles included The United States Spelling Book and The American Preceptor. When it came to arithmetic, the titles were more complex but the patriotic theme remained. New and Complete Systems of Arithmetic Composed for the Use of the Citizens of the United States and Being a Plain, Practical and Systematic Compendium of Federal Arithmetic were just a few of the more popular textbooks widely circulated in the early 1800s. Using these purely American terms was still a new and exciting way to remind citizens that the country was in its infancy and that everything needed to be reinvented with a purely American spin. The idea that exists today that universal texts need the American touch was born in this era of national construction, when what was taught began to be just as important as how it was presented.

From the start, then, public education in the United States was about moving students collectively in the direction the nation wanted to go. Individualism and customized learning were certainly not common terms and the choices for education were slim. The accepted curricula for one American was good enough for another. This base learning was rooted in the need to not only obtain knowledge, but to use education as a way to build up a nation that was still teetering dangerously on the edge of failure. Parents did not encourage their children to learn spelling or arithmetic so they could have a “better life” but so they could continue to have a free one. Education was a means of survival and banding together with the same education goals, at least when it came to common people, was a way to build the entire nation up. Sure, there was some educational elitism through private schooling and university systems, but when it came to the public institutions of learning, every student deserved and earned the same set of knowledge.

As the country continued to expand, both in sheer numbers and land mass, public education became more segmented. Public schools until the 1840s were under local control, with little input from the state and virtually no federal oversight. Attendance was rising though. The U.S. Census from 1840 shows that 3.68 million children from ages 5 to 15 attended school, and this represented about 55 percent of the population in that age bracket. Around this time the idea of one-room schoolhouses took shape, with the older students acting as helpers to the younger ones. Students learned in common ways from teachers and each other. When it came to teachers, there was no formal credentialing. This is why young, single women often filled the roles. They were available, and able, so they filled the roles of educators until they became married and were needed full-time in homes of their own. As in the post-Revolutionary days, education became the responsibility of everyone in the community.

It’s important to understand how public schools started in order to reach the point where we understand WHY they operate the way they do 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 Policy & Reform, Teachers

How Did We Get Here? Part II: Early Learning 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

When the public school systems of America were first founded in in the late 1700s, they were practical places. In a growing country trying to build a stable economy on the world stage, public schools stood as the building blocks for the next generation of U.S. workers. Students did not need more than a few years to learn the basics of what they would need to propel the nation forward to its next level. Socialization and learning side skills, like manners, were perks of the public school system but not primary goals. The success of a particular education path was determined by the functionality in society of the student upon completion.

Without a national system in place to address educational issues, it fell on the shoulders of private institutions of Colonial America. Education was not mandatory and there were very few paid educators. Learning endeavors were voluntary – both on the part of the students and those who were able to teach. Knowledge did come with value attached but not as much, say, as learning the skill of a particular trade. Apprenticeships were common and “idle” learning was viewed negatively.

Much of the prescribed education during this cornerstone period of the nation’s growth happened in the home. Learning to read was often a task assigned to mothers, though without access to paper, most colonial children learned to write and trace letters using the ashes of the fireplace. When children had mastered enough to read on their own, they received a Bible in hand or another piece of British literature. As a result of this devotion to learning set forth by mothers, most children who did attend school already knew how to read when they arrived at the age of 7 or 8.

That’s an interesting thing to consider, particularly since the children entering today’s Kindergarten classrooms generally do not possess proficiency in literary skills. Kindergarten students, at least the ones considered “ready,” should know the alphabet, how to write their first and last names, and how to count to 20. From there, today’s teachers are expected to turn them into voracious readers who fall in love with literacy. By the age of 5 or 6 (more parents than ever are choosing to delay Kindergarten starts by one year for their kids), the seeds of interest have already been planted in kids’ heads. What’s more – by the age of 5, many learning opportunities have been missed. Research has found time and again that the first five years of a child’s life are the most vital to an individual’s overall knowledge base.

Waiting until Kindergarten to learn reading, math and other language concepts means a large missed window of learning opportunities. Children are hard-wired for learning but in contemporary America, the first five years of life are widely regarded as ones that belong to the “play” category. There are certainly things that are learned through play and everyday life but concentrated, organized learning tends to be reserved for years following the first half-decade of a child’s life. This was not the case when it came to Colonial families. Learning was a responsibility of home life and one that was not relegated to the few formal education systems that existed.

In the late 1700s, when children knew enough to reach their perceived potential in life, they left school to enter the workforce – whether on the family farm or in a trade outside their homes. Women used their own knowledge sets on the domestic front, and eventually to teach their own children. Very few Colonial-time students went on to college and very few really needed it. For all intents and purposes, school was for learning the practical side of life and for developing a shared sense of knowledge among the youth of the young nation.

Clearly, today’s U.S. educational system is much different — so how did we get here? Follow me in this series to learn more about the progression of education in America from those earliest days to contemporary classrooms.

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

Zero tolerance laws increase suspension rates for black students

F. Chris Curran, University of Maryland, Baltimore County

The State Senate of Michigan is currently considering legislation that would scale back “zero tolerance” discipline policies in the state’s public schools.

Zero tolerance discipline laws require automatic and generally severe punishment for specified offenses that could range from possessing weapons to physical assault. They leave little leeway for consideration of the circumstances of the offense.

The bill, already approved by the State House, proposes to add provisions that would consider the contextual factors around an incident, such as the student’s disciplinary history, and would ask whether lesser forms of punishment would suffice.

In other words, suspension and expulsion would no longer be as “mandatory” and there would be a little more “tolerance” in these state discipline laws.

As a researcher of education policy and school discipline, I would highlight that these revisions, some of which have been passed in other states, represent a significant change of course for state school discipline law.

In fact, my recent work and that of others suggests that the shift away from zero tolerance approaches is for the better.

Why zero tolerance policies were introduced

Throughout the 1990s, the number of states with zero tolerance laws, those requiring suspension or expulsion for specified offenses, increased significantly.

The rapid adoption of such laws was spurred in part by the passage of the 1994 Gun-Free Schools Act, federal legislation that required states to adopt mandatory expulsion laws for possessing a firearm in school.

These safety concerns were further heightened by the shooting that took place at Columbine High School, a public high school in Littleton, Colorado.

Following Columbine, by the early 2000s, nearly every state had a zero tolerance law in place. Many of these laws expanded beyond firearms to include other weapons, physical assaults and drug offenses.

Push back against zero tolerance

Clearly, such zero tolerance laws were meant to improve the safety and order of the school environment. However, in recent years, they have been seen as being overly prescriptive and as contributing to racial disparities in school discipline.

For instance, there are cases of students being suspended for accidentally bringing a pocketknife to school. In one high-profile case, a student was suspended for chewing a pastry into the shape of a gun.

Black kids are suspended at a higher rate. Children image via www.shutterstock.com

Additionally, federal data show that black students are suspended at rates two to three times higher than their white peers.

As a result, in 2014, the U.S. Department of Justice and Department of Education issued a joint “Dear Colleague” letter directed to public school districts. The letter was a call for reductions in the use of suspensions and expulsions and, instead, for a focus on ensuring the fair use of school discipline for students of all backgrounds.

Here’s what new research shows

In a newly published study, I explored the implications of state zero tolerance laws – laws that require school districts to adopt zero tolerance policies.

In particular, I sought to find out if they contributed to increased use of suspensions and if they led to racial disparities. Given claims by proponents of such laws that they increase the safety and order of the school overall, I also wanted to see if these laws contributed to decreases in perceptions of problem behaviors in the school as a whole.

I used national data collected by the U.S. Department of Education as part of the Civil Rights Data Collection and the Schools and Staffing Survey. The sample included thousands of school districts and principals spanning the late 1980s to the mid-2000s.

The study revealed three important findings.

First, the study showed that state laws requiring schools to have zero tolerance policies increased suspension rates for all students. Second, suspension rates increased at a higher rate for African-American students, potentially contributing to racial disparities in discipline. Finally, principals reported few decreases in problem behaviors in schools, suggesting that the laws did not improve the safety and order of schools.

The findings, in context

The findings show that the adoption of state zero tolerance laws result in increases in district suspension rates. For the average-sized district, such laws resulted in approximately 35 more suspensions per year.

Though this number may seem small, the potential impact is quite large.

A recent study by researchers at UCLA, for example, suggests that a one percentage point reduction in the suspension rate nationally would result in societal gains of over US$2 billion through reduced dropout and increased economic productivity. In short, state zero tolerance laws may be imposing significant financial costs on society.

Burden of zero tolerance laws is not shared equally. Boy image via www.shutterstock.com

Furthermore, the burden of these costs are not equally shared across all groups.

The results of my study suggest that the increase in suspension rates for black students as a result of these laws is approximately three times the size of that for white students.

Coupled with other research that finds links between zero tolerance policies and racial disparities, this finding demonstrates that these laws, though supposedly neutral with regard to race, are disproportionately impacting students of color.

Recent data released by the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights also point to persistent disparities by race in the use of school discipline.

No reduction in misbehavior

Proponents of zero tolerance discipline have argued that the use of suspensions and expulsions increases the safety and order of the learning environment as a whole. My study found evidence to refute the claim.

In my data set, principals rated the degree to which various behavior problems (i.e., fighting, disrespect, use of drugs, weapons) were problems in their schools.

I found that, in the view of principals, the presence of a state zero tolerance law did not decrease their rating of the degree to which these various behaviors are problems. In other words, state zero tolerance laws did not appear to be contributing to improved levels of safety and order overall.

What the results mean for policy and practice

Students, parents and other stakeholders have an expectation that schools should be safe and orderly environments that treat all students equitably. While it is imperative that schools take active steps to achieve these goals, the findings of my work call into question whether state zero tolerance discipline laws are the most effective way to do so.

While suspension and expulsion may still be appropriate tools in some circumstances, it is important for schools to consider context, and states to allow such discretion, in the administration of school discipline. Furthermore, it is important to have safeguards in place to ensure that such discretion is utilized equitably for students of color, who too often experience disproportionate disciplinary exclusion.

The revised disciplinary laws under consideration in Michigan and similar revisions to school disciplinary policies in other states represent more promising steps to ensuring effective and fair school discipline.

The Conversation

F. Chris Curran, Assistant Professor of Public Policy, University of Maryland, Baltimore County

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

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

The HBCU Advantage, Part I: A Lesson in Thriving While in Dire Financial Straits

Today, most Historically Black Colleges and Universities fight financial ruin as they struggle to find their new position in today’s integrated world. Getting the funds to not only survive, but blossom, is an exercise in creativity—and HBCUs are up to the challenge. Want to know how? This chapter covers some of their latest undertakings.

Why HBCUs love donations (hint: it’s not the money)

Stephen A. Smith, best known for his work on the ESPN show “First Take,” plans to give $250,000 to his alma mater, Winston-Salem University. According to Journalnow.com, Smith is dedicated to aiding the school he loves.

Smith made the announcement during a fundraiser for Winston-Salem where he pledged to give $50,000 per year for the next five years to the school.

While speaking, Smith said that HBCUs need assistance and that he and other alumni should step up to the plate to help the schools thrive.

“A lot of HBCUs are hurting financially, but I’m here to tell you they are needed in a big way.”

Smith was a big hit at breakfast, and his announcement regarding his generous donation came as a shock to the university. Smith did not mention it ahead of his speech, apparently, and so the sounds of shock in the room were genuine. Elwood Robinson, the school’s chancellor, was left speechless because he was unaware that Smith planned to give so much back to the school at one time.

“But to do what he did and back it up like that and it’s just tremendous. It just speaks of the commitment he has to this university, and it goes back to what Big House Gaines taught so many of his players and students, and that’s to give back,” said Robinson.

Big House Gaines was Smith’s basketball coach when he attended Winston-Salem, and because of Smith’s generosity towards his former school, he was inducted into the Big House Gaines Hall of Fame.

I think what Smith did is admirable and will hopefully set the stage for other HBCU alumni to donate to the schools that helped them reach success. With so much competition for education available, it’s important that HBCUs are supported both in spirit and in tangible funds by the people they have graduated.

It’s not just alumni donations that are welcome. Donations from outside organizations seem to be popular as well.

One church was certainly generous with its gifts

Many students headed to Historically Black Colleges and Universities this fall received fantastic going away presents from Alfred Street Baptist Church in Alexandria, Virginia. It gave away more than $2 million in scholarships to high school students on their way to HBCUs later this year.

The event held at T.C. Williams High School, the school made famous by the movie Remember the Titans starring Denzel Washington, hosted the 14th annual HBCU College Festival where more than 3,000 students, parents, and volunteers attended.

More than 60 HBCUs were represented at the festival, and many students attained full ride scholarships to an HBCU.

Over $40,000 in application fees were waived, and in addition to the full scholarships given, close to 170 students received merit scholarships on site.

With over 5,000 students registered to attend, the event was the largest in the festival’s history. While students from Virginia were there, others came from areas such as Florida, New York, Illinois, and other places.

It was, to say the least, a resounding success. The event showed why HBCUs are so important and how the community may come together for a great cause.

Some students who received scholarships and money for college at the event may have received a once in a lifetime opportunity as the cost of college tuition, and fees continue to rise.

State legislators have cut into budgets for higher education, and Congress has attempted to curtail the available dollars for Pell Grants.

But the great news for students who may see a bleak future due to current events is that we still have organizations and churches that are willing to provide support for students who need it, and for those who deserve it.

Next year’s festival is likely to be just as successful, and with more than $2 million given out in scholarship money this year, hopefully, more is handed out in 2017.

Let’s look at another donation given to support HBCU excellence

Duke Energy is putting its financial support behind Historically Black Colleges and Universities.

By way of Prnewswire.com, the energy giant gave a grant of $35,000 to the North Carolina organization The Institute to supports its new HBCU Leadership Exchange.

A non-profit that supports business diversity, The Institute will soon launch the HBCU Leadership Exchange to help support and forge relationships between corporations and students enrolled at HBCUs in North Carolina.

In short, The Institute’s new program will look to connect students at HBCUs with jobs in corporate America. It’s not a bad program to build as diversity within the corporate field–specifically technology–is always a hot button topic.

The Institute has a track record of aiding minority business development as the group offers services to assist the growth of small businesses. As The Institute has been around for more than three decades, the HBCU Leadership Exchange is starting off with strong backing.

Also–Duke Energy gives close to $30 million in grants each year in areas such as education, economic development, the environment, and much more.

But this new program has potential to serve a grand number of black students. While the grant from Duke Energy isn’t substantial, it at least gives The Institute a portion of the starting funds needed to help launch the program.

With no reason to believe that the exchange will not have success, Duke Energy will likely to continue to provide financial support that will only grow in the future.

As mentioned previously, the goal of this new exchange is to foster relationships between corporations and HBCU students.

Students who are looking for jobs in a specific area will likely be paired with mentors or given the opportunity to meet and greet leaders from certain industries.

With growth and limitless potential on the horizon, students at HBCUs in North Carolina should be excited about this new venture.

Here’s something interesting about the nature of these donations: they’re not just about helping the schools stay afloat. A lot of money goes to help students go to school, preparing the next generation of students for the workforce. Notice also the donation to The Institute, where the eventual goal is better-represented leadership in corporate America. The money that is being used to further HBCU causes is an investment in tomorrow, rather than a means to survive today. There’s something admirable about this.

Is the government finally on board? Government support increases

In recent years, it seems like HBCUs have been dwindling into obscurity. They have been fighting potential obsolescence as more black students choose to attend predominantly white universities. To stick around, they have needed to rebrand themselves or establish the kind of reputation that keeps students dying to attend.  Unfortunately, many schools have been unable to do this and have faced de-funding and closing.

But it seems as if recently, the government is realizing just how important these institutions are.

For example, to advance the goals of HBCUs, North Carolina Congresswoman Alma Adams has introduced the HBCU Innovation Fund Act. The bill would create a fund that would make the availability of $250 million in grants open to Historically Black Colleges and Universities.

To improve viability, student achievement, rates of graduation, enrollment figures, and more, the accessibility of grant money to HBCUs would help to push them towards modernization.

As HBCUs continue to receive press regarding how some schools are doing financially, and if segregation regarding offered programs occurs, it is refreshing to see that all HBCUs may receive a boost if this bill passes.

The legislation, H.R. 4857, was lauded by the United Negro College Fund as innovative and has over 15 co-sponsors in Congress.

If the bill passes, it will open HBCUs up to more than just money and opportunity. Grant money would be used to help remodel certain courses and create new programs. As with the new Queer and Cultural Studies program being offered at Bowie State University, more programs of this nature may be cultivated through HBCUs if H.R. 4857 is passed.

There will be more opportunities for inclusion and recruitment, and retention efforts will certainly increase.

Some HBCUs struggle to maintain strong enrollment numbers, particularly in a culture where online learning often replace on-campus initiatives. This bill would hopefully help many HBCUs create stronger programs to go after more students.

But more than anything, this legislation would make HBCUs more competitive in an educational environment that has changed. Some schools have failed to keep up, through no fault of its own, and some are beginning to fall behind.

Stemming that tide and keeping HBCUs around so that more students of color are served, and the cultural importance of each school is maintained, an HBCU fund for innovation and is needed and welcomed.

It may be a while before the HBCU Innovation Fund Act makes its way into law. Fortunately, there will also be more immediate funds available for HBCUs over the next fiscal year.

According to Salisburypost.com, funding for the federal program that provides financial assistance for HBCUs will increase nearly $400 million. That’s good news for some of the country’s oldest universities and trailblazers for providing a college education for everyone.

“The omnibus spending bill provides a $22 million increase for the Title III Strengthening Historically Black Colleges and Universities program administered by the U.S. Department of Education, providing the largest funding boost for the program in six years. As a result, total program funding will increase to $387 million in Fiscal Year 2016.”

The new money included in the spending bill will continue to help some of these schools recruit new students, replenish endowments, and perhaps most important, buy cutting-edge technology.

United Negro College Fund CEO Dr. Michael Lomax believes that this funding will work towards making HBCUs more attractive to new students and said as much in the Salisburypost.com article. I share Dr. Lomax’s belief that HBCUs need to be protected as part of the important college landscape in America.

For the past couple of years, the HBCU category of schools has been under increased scrutiny due to financial reasons and because some schools have been forced to close. There has also been some criticism that the very roles HBCUs were created to take on are not as relevant in today’s diverse college population. I’d argue that the first problem can see potential improvement with federal funding and a bigger cash influx from alumni, private donors, and business partnerships. I’d also argue that though the primary role of HBCUs has evolved, they are more relevant than ever and we should continue to support them.

While increased funding will not cure each and every problem that HBCUs have, it will alleviate some of the financial pressure that some schools face – so I think this funding is a step in the right direction.

Creative ways HBCUs are generating revenue

Many institutions of higher education are looking to carve new avenues to create revenue.

Howard University is no exception—except that it has stumbled across something old to inject new money into the university.

Jair Lynch Real Estate has entered into a deal with Howard University to develop Meridian Hill dormitory into luxury rentals available to the general public.

The move will ease some of the financial pain the school has felt over the years. An idea first pitched by Howard President Wayne Frederick a couple of years ago; the school finally pulled the trigger on the deal this month.

According to Washingtonpost.com, Howard will still own the property and required Jair Lynch to pay an upfront fee of $22 million for the rights to redevelop the property.

Over the past few years, Howard’s financial health has come into question as the school’s credit has been downgraded twice and the school’s staff has been reorganized or cut.

To contend with those issues, Frederick identified the school’s real estate as a way to drive new income. Valued at over $1.5 billion, Howard has a lot to review regarding what it may sell or lease.

But Frederick and school officials aren’t ready to sell off everything. Taking their time to evaluate what’s in the school’s best interest, they don’t seem to be in a rush.

Every move hasn’t been met with open arms. The school has decided to enter into an FCC auction for its airwaves that may bring in upwards of $461 million. That would mean that Howard would rid itself of WHUT-TV; a sale that is sure to upset alumni and students.

The decision to enter into the auction isn’t final as the school has until March to decide if it still wants to participate. Howard may decide to opt-out as there is no guarantee that it will receive a value of $461 million for its airwaves.

I applaud Howard’s decision to tap the resources it already has to stabilize revenue, and it will be fascinating to see what sort of interest is sparked for the luxury apartments.

Conclusion

Overall, it’s great to see how much support HBCUs are getting, and how much effort the colleges themselves are putting into being their best yet. While it’s true that we are in challenging times for HBCUs, the moves HBCUs and their supporters are making will ensure that these challenges are merely growing pains, rather than the end of the road.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Diversity

The Diversity Responsibility Colleges Face Following the 2016 Election

The Presidential race between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump will go down as one of the most unpredictable, and contentious, of American history. The candidates’ personalities, paired with the 24-7 news cycle and social media, made an already inundated time for political messaging completely saturated. It pushed people to their breaking points, revealing the worst in some and the true colors in many.

The end result is a country that will truly never be the same. Whether it’s neighbors with opposing yard signs who can no longer see eye to eye, or family members disinvited to Thanksgiving celebrations, the very real impact of this election season will linger for long after the votes were cast.

Things have changed for colleges and universities too. It’s too soon to know exactly what to expect in the way of legislation, funding and federal support for the higher education landscape over the next four years, but there are some intangible effects that are already evident. The most basic of these lessons is this: We aren’t as far along as a diverse nation as we thought.

And it isn’t just set-in-their-ways adults either. The night of Trump’s victory, a black baby doll with a noose around its neck was found in an elevator at predominantly white Canisius College in Buffalo, New York. This is just one example that proves that the nation’s youngest adults are not all enlightened when it comes to diversity and equality; there is still a lot of work to be done and much of it should happen on college campuses. Yet, on the higher education scene students are still being marginalized – whether that discrimination is direct or a result of policy.

So where do we go from here? As a collective college and university system, how do we piece together our latest revelations about our nation and apply it to building a more diverse ecosystem?

Colleges must recognize the new normal.

It starts by colleges acknowledging that we truly aren’t as progressive (as a nation) as we thought. Of course, those of us who have made diversity our life’s work have long been aware of the holes in the equality spectrum. But now we have an entire nation who is seeing it, some for the first time, too. Whether they choose to acknowledge it or not, a deeper awareness of the plight of many marginalized Americans was revealed during election season. It will impact the way we treat each other and it will impact the atmosphere of college campuses. People just know more. That knowledge ups the responsibility of what colleges teach and how they interact with student bodies.

Colleges must acknowledge everyday injustices.

Discrimination isn’t always outright. It doesn’t always manifest in hate crimes or racial slurs. Many times it is subtly ingrained in our societal fabric – penetrating our psyche to the point that we don’t even notice it anymore. This is especially true for the traditionally privileged of society – the white, middle-class males (if we are going for a stereotype). The unfair things these Americans have faced pale in comparison to minority groups, and even women. When you’ve never been exposed to the type of establishment racism and division that are common to disadvantaged populations, it feels like that type of existence is far-fetched – maybe even made up. It takes movements like Black Lives Matter, or …., or even the obvious xenophobia and racism that arose during the election season to really wake a person up.

Colleges must step up when it comes to eliminating inequality across the board with a more proactive approach. Instead of having a crisis team on call, universities must work consistently to give all students the opportunities they deserve. They must also call on the workforce beyond the college years to do the same. Where there is a student at a disadvantage, questions must be asked as to what led to that point – and how it can be fixed.

There is no easy fix for where we are as a nation when it comes to diversity. Colleges and universities have the responsibility to spearhead positive change, though. The next generation of adults deserves better opportunity and higher education is the starting place.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Higher Education

How Colleges Can Maintain Diversity in a Trump-Led America

The shock of the Presidential election results is still sinking in across America, for both Trump supporters and anti-Trump voters. The thing that seemed outlandish and completely impossible just a year ago has now become the reality for Americans. The truth remains, however, that come January 20 the nation’s highest office will be helmed by Republican Donald Trump.

Based on his campaign rhetoric there is a lot of understandable fear regarding the state of diversity in the nation and what it all means for marginalized groups like minorities, LGBTQ+ individuals, and even women. What happens in the next four years remains to be seen but colleges, our nation’s hotbeds for diversity progress, can take some actions to ensure that they are just as inclusive and progressive in four years as they are today.

Here’s how to keep college and university campuses moving forward for diversity in a Trump-led America:

Talk about the issues.

Trump’s platform rose to popularity on issues like illegal immigration, tax-funded health insurance, and abortion rights. Facilitate conversations at the college-wide level about these issues, looking at the best outcomes for a more diverse America while truly examining the opposing views. This can take place in classrooms but should also happen at a college-wide level at forums or other university-hosted events. Don’t just dismiss xenophobia or white privilege as “bad” – talk about why people put their faith in those things and how to turn the tide from fear to understanding. Allow students to learn from each other in an organic way that doesn’t hand down a black-or-white decree on the issues. Colleges must lead the discussions on these issues so the next generation of educated graduates has a broader world view and deeper awareness.

Prepare for less student aid.

Under the Obama administration, plans for two years of free community college for all students who maintained the right course load and grade-point average were under way. It’s reasonable to assume that Secretary Clinton would have furthered that plan and also reasonable to assume that Mr. Trump will not. Things like Pell grants and federally-funded aid are likely to tank or at the very least, remain stagnant. Colleges and universities that want to keep increasing the diversity on their campuses must put actionable plans in place to make that happen. This includes more private scholarships, along with more reasonable costs for students and spending plans for attendance. Early high school recruiting will becomes more important than ever so colleges and universities can target a diverse population and get those students prepped for college costs and financial aid programs.

Prepare for funding cuts.

One of Vice President-elect Mike Pence’s claimed successes in his home state of Indiana was a fiscally stronger state (at least on paper). The reality of that was cuts to education, specifically public education, and the juvenile criminal justice system (among other areas). Public colleges and universities should expect to see less funding across the board in an attempt to “repair” national spending. Private colleges could feel the sting too when it comes to federal funds for student aid and other eligible campus spending. Every college campus has different needs but thinking ahead, right now, about ways to salvage diversity programs and support programs for disadvantaged students is vital to keeping those services afloat and thriving. How can your school continue to support the students that need diversity programs the most?

Tap alumni giving.

Most colleges and universities already have a robust alumni giving program in place but the urgency now for outside funds is greater than it was before this election. If there are programs that will see funding cuts, let alumni know the specifics. Share information about what funding is going down and how they can help boost it back up. If graduates know about the specific need they are more likely to give. Alumni who appreciate what a diverse campus and student support services did in their own lives will be more likely to give if they know a program is going to be cut or eliminated completely. Alumni are usually passionate about the place they earned their higher education, and will help to keep it successful if they can.

Fear is understandable – but preparation is smart. Trying to control what we can right now when it comes to protecting diversity on college campuses can make the difference in what we see regarding it when these four years are up.

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

Ineffective assessments, part I: An intro

Click here to read all of the articles in our Ineffective Assessments series.

In the U.S. public school system, there is a lot of talk of “accountability.” Teachers are held accountable for what their students do, or do not, know. Administrators are taken to task if standardized test scores are too low, or drop from one year to the next. State lawmakers are asked to correct any “crisis” of underperforming students through legislation. When it comes to the progress and success of our K-12 students, the ball is constantly being passed, and passed back again, until some course of action is put in place that will presumably fix whatever academic woe is perceived in a particular school, district or state.

One major way that this accountability is enforced is through standardized testing. By applying the same requirements to each teacher, and each student within a state, the general theory is that accountability for student success will be upheld. Truly understanding what our students are learning is more complicated than that, though. The state of today’s K-12 assessments is a sad one, and is one of the biggest reasons our public schools are failing their students.

There are other ways that we measure the success of K-12 systems in the U.S., both public and private. One way is through graduation rates, and another is through college acceptance and graduation numbers. These only tell part of the story though. Presumably, handing someone a diploma means that person has mastered the required material and “knows” what is needed to earn the graduation distinction. Research has shown us, however, that this conclusion is an oversimplification.

We know that American students lag behind other developed countries when it comes to math and science achievement. Students in countries like South Korea and Singapore consistently outrank U.S. students when it comes to basic and advanced math and science course achievements. Survey after survey of business leaders bemoan the lack of basic writing and communication skills their employees possess and on the 2011 National Assessment of Educational Progress, only 27 percent of 12th graders were proficient in writing.

Waiting until students are done with K-12 learning is simply too long to figure out if they are learning what they need to know. A student who falls behind on subject matter in a particular grade, for example, will struggle in the next grade to succeed. So it becomes impossible to base the success and improvement rates of students on the end results alone. Assessments throughout the K-12 journey are necessary — but how those assessments are administered is one of the most hotly contested issues surrounding the K-12 system today.

The bane of every K-12 educators’ existence is the “teaching to the test” mentality. Even teachers who are strongly opposed to such a narrow way of educating students find that staying within a narrow realm of material becomes a necessity of contemporary classroom assessment culture. Increasingly, the worth of teachers is placed solely on student performance results, specifically when it comes to standardized testing. The entire value of what a teacher does in a classroom during a given year, and how the teachers performed in the prior years, often boils down to what a statewide blanket test spits out in the way of student results. While benchmarks for grade levels have merit, the way that assessments are administered and weighted in today’s K-12 public schools are ineffective and unfair to the teachers who must adhere to them.

Some of the biggest arguments surrounding the use of standardized assessments to determine student success and teacher capability include:

  • Inadequate sampling of material being tested.
  • Indirect, rather than direct, observation of what a student is truly learning.
  • Too narrow a scope of knowledge.
  • Not enough exceptions made for regionalisms or cultural differences within a state.
  • Too many lasting inferences made about the students taking the tests that are based on very little merit.
  • Too much emphasis on a punishment mentality, and not enough on what can actually be improved.
  • No accounting for socioeconomic or disadvantaged barriers that hinder a teacher’s potential.

Despite the qualms with the basics of standardized testing, many educators view them as necessary evils of the improvement process. More cynical educators view it as a completely useless process that is never a true indicator of what students actually know. Proponents of K-12 assessments say that without them, there is no adequate way to enforce educator accountability and to truly know if students are learning what they should know at each level. Critics say that assessments put too much focus on a narrow span of information and force teachers to teach “to the test,” thus leading to rampant anti-intellectualism. Is rote memorization a true test of the knowledge of students? If teachers are given too much freedom, will students learn the basic things they need to know? These are just two of the many questions swirling around the K-12 assessment system in the U.S. and ones that need to be addressed and answered in order to build a stronger student body.

 

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

How Did We Get Here? Part I: What is The State of Education Reform Today?

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

Think back on your earliest recollection of American history as it was taught to you in school. The Founding Fathers didn’t earn that moniker by following alongside all the other young men in their schools, colleges and career paths. On the contrary, these men had dreams that lived outside the Colonial box and they aimed to make them reality, no matter what the personal cost. This story form repeats itself throughout American history, too. Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King Jr., women’s suffrage leader Lucy Burns – they all took the road less traveled and broke out of the mold of their times to make a positive impact on the future and move the country forward.

Every country has its folk heroes, of course, and these figure heads serve as reminders that you should always, always stick by your belief systems even if they run contrary to everyone else’s. In America, though, everyone is entitled to follow in the footsteps of these leaders – these heroes that paved the way. In large and small ways, everyday Americans shape the future of the country just by tapping into their natural talents and personal stances. It’s why we have bifocals, and fire hydrants, and swivel chairs. Without American innovators, the world would have never been able to enjoy cupcakes, or graham crackers, or baseball. Had inventors like Henry Ford, Robert Fulton and Wilbur Wright walked the line and focused on the career paths and learning options their government deemed a priority, they may have never had the mind to attach an engine here, or a motor there, or a wing up there.

Innovation is what has always driven Americans, and continues to drive us all today. It’s what has simultaneously given us the labels of crazy and genius. Frankly, it’s what makes Americans a global force to be reckoned with. Without the many Americans who have stepped outside the lines to better their own ways of life and those of their fellow citizens, this nation would not be considered the greatest on the globe.

That innovation, that creative spirit, is born in our public schools. The students who will dream up the next generation’s major inventions, and come up with plans to improve the American way of life, and fill every job in between are in our K-12 classrooms today. Despite more choices than ever when it comes to the childhood learning years, public schools remain a steadfast reminder of all that is great, and inspirational, and smart about the American way.

As America has grown in its nearly 250 years of existence, its public school system has also adjusted with the times. Different theories on properly educating our next generations have been introduced, tested, established and thrown out. Each new evolution of the public school systems in the U.S. have built upon the lessons of the ones before – both good and bad – and have culminated to bring us to the current state of U.S. education today.

So what do our school systems look like, really? If you base your knowledge of the nation’s public schools on news headlines alone, you likely have a bleak perception of what exactly is happening in the K-12 classrooms funded by our tax dollars. A report issued from the U.S. Department of Education in April of 2014 showed that high school seniors did not show any signs of improvement in math and science scores from 2009 to 2013. When compared with other developed countries, U.S. students lag seriously behind in areas like math and science, too. The students who are bringing down the national averages are not just from underprivileged areas, either. Among students from households where at least one parent has a college degree, or the family is considered “affluent,” the U.S. ranks as number 27 on a list of 34 countries in math capabilities. A Washington Examiner report also finds that more than half of 15 year olds from homes with well-educated parents are not proficient in at least one of three areas: reading, math or science.

Despite these and numerous other reports that are similar, U.S. seniors are graduating at a record rate of 80 percent. It is a happy statistic, no doubt, and one that should be celebrated but it does leave some room for speculation: how are so many U.S. students lagging behind in so many vital academic areas, yet graduating from our schools at record rates?

The truth is complicated. Standards for exactly what students should be learning at every step of their educational journey have never been more stringent. The No Child Left Behind legislation enacted in 2001 heightened educator accountability systems and put more stringent assessment processes in place to measure the true learning outcomes of students. These requirements were not suggestions, but were (and are) tied to federal funding. So a school district doing exceptionally well based on the set-forth standards receives its federal funding while another that is struggling, and is arguably in greater need for the money, is left to flounder in its failures.

Teacher accountability was in place before NCLB, and so were state assessment tests, but the legislation thrust both on a pedestal that schools are still reeling to accommodate. By setting blanket benchmarks for the entire nation, based on limited tested materials, teachers were essentially stripped of their free will when it came to educating and were forced to begin “teaching to the test.” For many educators, NCLB was a marked end to learning for learning’s sake in classrooms, and even meant dumbing down materials to be sure all students scored well on those vital assessments.

Fast forward 12 years to the recent enactment of Common Core Standards in 44 states and the District of Columbia, and accountability and assessments have even more to contend with. Tied to President Obama’s federal funding program Race to the Top, Common Core benchmarks were determined by the National Governors Association. States could choose to opt in or out, with pressure to conform enhanced by the promise of good old fashioned American money. Like NCLB legislation (which still exists alongside Common Core requirements), the new set of initiatives seeks stronger student outcomes in areas like math, science and technology.

Which is a good thing, right? If our students are lagging in these areas then it makes sense to raise our standards when it comes to learning them, doesn’t it? In theory, Common Core Standards work. Place more focus on the subjects where American students need extra help, attach some money as an incentive and then watch the test scores rise. The true effectiveness of these standards remains to be seen, but it is hard to imagine that placing greater concentration on a narrow range of subjects, at the expense of others, will end up boding well for this generation of K-12 students.

Assessments and teacher accountability tied to funding are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the issues holding back the actual process of learning in our public schools. Issues of overcrowding, and inequality of resources, and a cultural shift towards anti-intellectualism weigh heavy on the schools within our borders.

Follow me through this U.S. Education series as we look at what is ailing our schools and how to get on a better path.

By identifying the major problems that hinder the effectiveness of the public schools of our nation, we can start a journey that will lead us toward better outcomes for future generations. It is not a task that is reserved for educators alone. To really experience the changes needed to raise the quality of what we offer our children when it comes to their educations, it will take every parent, business owner and community member. Change won’t happen overnight but with concentrated efforts and societal support, it can be enacted. It’s important first though to understand the exact history of our public schools and what has taken place over the past two centuries to bring us to where we are today. The role that our public schools have played in shaping our modern society is a large one and the importance of its influence on our future should not be underestimated. To really create the type of society we desire as Americans, we must start with our public schools and understand how they are, and always have been, an integral piece of our future patchwork.

 

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

Scholarly collaboration: it’s time for the global South to call the shots

This article was written by Clive Kronenberg

Collaboration is, without a doubt, a positive and important part of academic life. Scholars benefit enormously when they’re able to develop teamwork skills for conducting research jointly or in partnerships.

Scholarly alliances can lighten the heavy burden of publishing in high-class international journals. It makes investigative ground work and funding procedures far less intense. It enables more scholars to share in successes. It is also crucial to identifying and grasping seemingly intractable social problems. All of this can benefit entire regions and even nations.

But there are also pitfalls and problems. Scholars from the global north still tend to dominate such “partnerships”. With more capital in hand, they often call the shots. Over the past decade or so, there have been some attempts to change these power dynamics.

The South-South Educational Scholarly Collaboration and Knowledge Interchange Initiative – or S-S Initiative – fits into this mould.

I am among those who initiated this endeavour. Over the past 18 months or so, its work has yielded some valuable lessons, insights and results. We’re a small group of academics with a shared focus on rural education. We all come from areas in the global South: Africa, the Caribbean and Latin America. Together, we’ve set up good, effective working engagements.

A history of oppression

In 2014 I started developing a national data base of rural education researchers. My goal was to boost general awareness of, and possibly create linkages between, local scholars dedicated to producing new and improved knowledge of a globally neglected yet crucial area of public schooling.

This culminated in the S-S Initiative. Current participants and collaborators are from Cuba, Zimbabwe, Democratic Republic of Congo, Argentina, Mozambique, Rwanda, and South Africa. Scholars from Colombia, Mexico, Kenya, Malawi and the Ivory Coast have also expressed interest in getting involved. It’s clear, then, that participants have something in common beyond their interest in rural education: they all come from countries that have historically been the victims of acute colonial oppression, marginalisation and underdevelopment.

This history continues to negatively impact on the provision of good, quality education, particularly in the realm of rural schooling.

There are many potential approaches to the global problem of rural education. There currently exists a range of secluded, often insulated remedial measures and strategies concerning this sector. These must be shared to develop and increase knowledge that ultimately is mutually beneficial. It is important to create suitable spaces where such prospects can be presented, engaged, and eventually applied where feasible.

Broad goals

The initiative has several key aims. With appropriate interest and support, these will be expanded and developed over time.

First, we’re reaching out to rural education scholars from the global South to join the membership data base. This provides opportunities for the exchange of ideas and experiences, as well as the possibility of launching partnerships in future.

It also sets the groundwork for conference presentations as well as the constitution of review boards. The selection of postgraduate supervisors and external examiners are further opportunities under consideration. In this way, experts can come together and apply their insights and work in a collective manner. Such a course, we hope, will offer suitable prospects to initiate and advance meaningful change in the broader S-S educational field.

We have launched a call for book chapters on the topic of rural education. It is hoped this will eventually lead to the formal establishment of a South-South Educational Journal, with a duly-appointed international review board. There is a dearth of academic journals collectively or especially devoted to learning and teaching practices in the global South as a whole.

It is not a question of expertise: scholars in this initiative have deep knowledge and experience of academic publishing. While some occupy leading positions on editorial boards, others have played key roles in actually establishing and administering academic and scientific journals.

We also hope to merge DVD documentary production with educational field research. This has the potential to reach a wider audience, thereby bringing parents and communities more decisively into the research fold. Schools and children thrive more when parents are more engaged in education.

Together with a dedicated, supportive team, I have already produced one DVD of this nature. A second is close to completion. And, with a colleague in the S-S Initiative, plans are underway for a documentary about rural schooling in the Republic of Cuba.

Small, steady steps

Funding will always be an issue for academics, particularly those from less developed territories. Fortunately, the S-S Initiative was enriched and boosted with funding I received from South Africa’s National Research Foundation. This allowed us to organise a symposium hosted at the Cape Peninsula University of Technology’s Education Faculty.

This gathering brought together a range of educational research scholars from the global South. Established, emerging and postgraduate scholars presented their work with special attention devoted to rural education. It was, as such spaces can be, fertile ground for the exchange of ideas and knowledge. It also allowed us to discuss possible future collaborations.

At their best, these kinds of initiatives don’t just benefit individual academics. Our hope is that by drawing together experts from the neglected global South, rurally-based school children’s educational development can take centre stage.

The Conversation

Clive Kronenberg, NRF Accredited & Senior Researcher; Lead Coordinator of the South-South Educational Collaboration & Knowlede Interchange Initiative, Cape Peninsula University of Technology

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

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

What would The UK government’s plans to cut student immigration by 50% mean for education in the UK?

The UK government is planning on slashing non-EU expat student numbers almost in half from 300,000 to 170,000 under tougher student visa rules. The threat is being greeted with dismay by university heads, who have claimed that some very good overseas applicants have already been refused visas on specious grounds.

Amber Rudd, the home secretary, has pledged a crackdown on international student numbers at the Conservative party conference to include more stringent visa rules for “lower quality” universities. However, senior universities are warning that the cutbacks could be far more severe than predicted, with one route to cut the current 300,000 to 170,000 a year.

According to the vice-chancellors’ umbrella group, international students bring more than £10.7bn to the UK economy.

Judgments being made by UK Visas and Immigration have apparently altered considerably in the past few months, with Indian students, in particular, being targeted.

Heads of Universities are reportedly fearful of speaking out about these decisions in case it counts against future applicants to their institution. Below however are some examples that the Guardian online shared of expat students being denied visas:

–    One applicant was considered not to be genuine because he did not know the university library opening times.

–    One applicant was excluded for not knowing the name of the vice-chancellor of the university.

–    One applicant was denied a visa for dropping below the amount specified in a bank account by a ‘couple of pounds’ on one day out of a 90-day period, despite his parents having huge funds and their account also being submitted.

Theresa May’s government is pursuing the target of reducing net migration into the UK to the tens of thousands, which has led it to this target non-EU student numbers. However, since taking office, net immigration has seen an increase. This is chiefly because several more students from outside the EU are coming to study at universities and language schools in the UK.

If the UK really want to be open to the world and a global leader in free trade, they can only do so by welcoming the fresh talent. If international students are going to study in the UK, they need to feel welcome, and so even a hint that students are unwelcome and they will go elsewhere. This isn’t about students claiming British citizenship, it’s about them feeling welcome enough to be able to complete their studies without anti-immigrant rhetoric from sending them elsewhere.

Members of the UK’s home affairs select committee have cautioned against these measures, claiming they could be hugely harmful to what is currently thriving and successful industry. These changes could potentially not only be economically detrimental to the UK, but also vital to the UK’s international relations.

Rebecca Harper is a freelance writing living in London. She writes about law, politics and immigration. When she isn’t writing, you can find her searching the cafes of London for the perfect flat white.

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

After Fisher: affirmative action and Asian-American students

Michele S. Moses, University of Colorado; Christina Paguyo, Colorado State University, and Daryl Maeda, University of Colorado

After eight years, the Abigail Fisher case finally has been put to rest. In a landmark judgment on June 23, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of race-conscious affirmative action in university admissions.

Abigail Fisher, a white woman, had sued the University of Texas at Austin (UT Austin) for its race-conscious admissions policy after she was denied admission. She had argued that the university violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Supporters of race-conscious admissions programs are understandably gratified. But has the case resolved the larger moral and political disagreements over affirmative action?

Roger Clegg, president of the Center for Equal Opportunity, which supports colorblind policies, has already called the decision just “a temporary setback.”

Indeed, over the last 40 years, affirmative action opponents have repeatedly strategized anew after important Supreme Court decisions in favor of affirmative action. They did so after the 1978 decision in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, when the Supreme Court, while allowing race to be one of the factors in choosing a diverse student body, held the use of quotas to be “impermissible.“

And they did so after the 2003 decision in Grutter v. Bollinger, when the high court again ruled that race-conscious affirmative action was constitutional.

We are scholars who study affirmative action, race, and diversity in higher education. We believe that the disagreement about affirmative action will not
end anytime soon. And it may well center on lawsuits on behalf of Asian-American college applicants.

Here is what is coming next

Through his organization, the Project on Fair Representation, Abigail Fisher’s advisor, Edward Blum, is currently engaged in a lawsuit challenging Harvard University’s race-conscious admissions policy.

What is different about the Harvard lawsuit is that the lead plaintiff in the case is not a white student. The plaintiff is an Asian-American student.

Asian-Americans participate in an Advancing Justice conference. Advancing Justice Conference, CC BY-NC-SA

“Students for Fair Admissions,” an arm of the Project on Fair Representation, filed a suit against Harvard College on November 17, 2014, on behalf of a Chinese-American applicant who had been rejected from Harvard. The lawsuit charges that Harvard’s admissions policy violates Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bars federally funded entities from discriminating based on race or ethnicity.

The “Harvard University Not Fair” website greets readers with a photo of an Asian-American student accompanied by the following text:

“Were you denied admission to Harvard? It may be because you’re the wrong race.”

How it started

This controversy over how Asian-Americans are being treated in selective college admission was jump-started in 2005, when sociologists Thomas Espenshade and Chang Chung published findings from their study on the effects of affirmative action bans on the racial and ethnic composition of student bodies at selective colleges and universities.

Espenshade and Chung found that if affirmative action were to be eliminated, the acceptance rates for black and Latino applicants would likely decrease substantially, while the acceptance rate for white applicants would increase slightly. But more than that, what they noted was that the acceptance rate for Asian-American applicants would increase the most by far.

As the researchers explained, Asian-American students “would occupy four out of every five seats created by accepting fewer African-American and Hispanic students.”

Such research has been cited to support claims of admissions discrimination against Asian-Americans.

In the complaint against Harvard, Espenshade’s research was cited as evidence of discrimination against Asian-Americans. Specifically, the lawsuit cited research from 2009 in which Espenshade, this time with coauthor Alexandria Radford, found that Asian-American applicants accepted at selective colleges had higher standardized test scores, on average, than other accepted students.

Are elite institutions discriminating against Asian-Americans in their admissions process? Kevin Lamarque/Reuters

These findings, especially that Asian-American applicants seem to need a higher SAT score than white applicants or other applicants of color in order to be admitted to a selective college are being used as proof that elite institutions like Harvard are discriminating against Asian-Americans in their admissions processes.

The picture is more complicated

As we know, selective admissions processes are much more complicated than SAT score data can show. There are many factors that are taken into consideration for college admission.

For example, in the “holistic” admissions processes endorsed by the Supreme Court in Grutter v. Bollinger, standardized text scores are not the only, or even the main, criterion for admission. “Holistic” review takes many relevant factors into account, including academic achievement, of course, but also factors such as a commitment to public service, overcoming difficult life circumstances, achievements in the arts or athletics, or leadership qualities.

So, why would the plaintiff in the Harvard case conclude that the disparities in SAT scores shown by Espenshade and Radford necessarily indicate that Asian-American applicants are being harmed by race-conscious affirmative action?

Legal scholar William Kidder has shown that the way Espenshade and Radford’s findings have been interpreted by affirmative action opponents is not accurate. The interpretation of this research itself rests on the faulty assumption that affirmative action is to blame if an academically accomplished Asian-American applicant gets rejected from an elite institution.

Based on his analysis, Kidder concluded,

“Exaggerated claims about the benefits for APAs [Asian Pacific Americans] of ending affirmative action foster a divisive public discourse in which APAs are falsely portrayed as natural adversaries of affirmative action and the interests of African American and Latinos in particular.”

In our opinion as well, focusing on simplistic ideas about standardized tests as the primary evidence for who “deserves” to be admitted to elite institutions like Harvard may serve to stir up resentment among accomplished applicants who get rejected.

As the “Harvard Not Fair” website and accompanying lawsuit demonstrate, these findings have been used to fuel a politics of resentment among rejected Asian-American applicants.

When speaking with reporters, Espenshade himself has acknowledged that his data are incomplete – given that colleges take myriad factors into account in admissions decisions – and his findings have been overinterpreted and actually do not prove that colleges discriminate against Asian-American applicants.

Are Asian-American students a monolithic group? Charlie Nguyen, CC BY

Moreover, in using images of Asian-American students to recruit complainants against Harvard and other highly selective institutions of higher education, the Project on Fair Representation relies on the idea that Asian-Americans comprise a monolithic group. In fact, the term “Asian-American” refers to a diversity of Asian ethnicities in the United States, whose educational opportunities and achievements vary widely.

The 2010 census question on race included check boxes for six Asian groups – Asian Indian, Chinese, Filipino, Japanese, Korean, and Vietnamese – along with a box for “Other Asian,” with a prompt for detailed responses such as “Hmong, Laotian, Thai, Pakistani, Cambodian, and so on.”

In addition, by casting plaintiffs as meritorious and deserving of a spot at an elite university, it also conveys the stereotypical received wisdom about Asian-American “model” students who are wronged by race-conscious affirmative action programs.

The Harvard lawsuit comes next

At this time, Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, is pending.

Now that Fisher has been decided, this case is the next front in the divisive politics surrounding race-conscious affirmative action in higher education admissions.

Relevant to the Harvard case is that a civil rights complaint alleging that Princeton University discriminates against Asian-American applicants was dismissed in 2015 after a long federal Office of Civil Rights investigation.

Although public disagreement about the policy continues, affirmative action is an imperfect, but as yet necessary tool that universities can leverage to cultivate robust and diverse spaces where students learn. June 23’s Fisher ruling underscores that important idea.

Related to the coming public discussions about the Harvard lawsuit, we are of the opinion that race-conscious policies like affirmative action need to be supported. The fact is that “Asian-Americans” have diverse social and educational experiences. And many Asian-Americans benefit from affirmative action policies.

The Conversation

Michele S. Moses, Professor of Educational Foundations, Policy, and Practice, University of Colorado; Christina Paguyo, Post Doctoral Fellow, Colorado State University, and Daryl Maeda, Associate Professor of Ethnic Studies, University of Colorado

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

  • no reactions
0
Share
Latest Posts