Diversity

Matthew Lynch published in Diversity

3 Reasons Our Classrooms Benefit from Minority Teachers

The number of minority students enrolled in U.S. schools is growing at a rapid rate, yet student enrollment is not matched by minority teacher representation. The National Center for Education Statistics tells us that nearly 82 percent of public school teachers are white — and Black and Hispanic students are two to three times more common than teachers of the same ethnicity. The gap is typically the widest in areas of the country with high percentages of students of color.

Nationwide, parents and policymakers are highlighting the importance of racial representation in the classroom. Here are some things to consider when it comes to having minority teachers in the classroom:

  1. Many feel that minority teachers are in a position to put a stop to negative stereotypes and act as role models and mentors for students of color. Teachers who can relate to their students’ backgrounds usually are better able to look past biases of their abilities.
  2. A study in Economics of Education Reviews tell us minority students perform better with minority teachers.
  3. In addition to the challenge of having too few minority teachers, we also see the highest percentage of Black teachers leaving the profession. This is likely because minority teachers tend to work in schools with high rates of poverty.

The education gap is a serious obstacle our country faces – and I think that the “diversity gap” is a major part of our struggle. The education gap is staggering and it is hindering our country socially and economically. We have to find ways to get more teachers of color in the classroom. Students perform better when they can relate to their teachers, and teachers who can relate to their students are less likely to have a preconceived idea of how each student will perform.  We need more teachers of color in our schools acting as strong role models for our minority students.

 

 

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

HBCU Insights: How college ratings reversal could benefit HBCUs

A column by Dr. Larry J. Walker

In 2013 President Obama outlined a plan to introduce a college ratings system to provide prospective students and their parents with the tools to make informed decisions. The proposed system was consistent with the President’s view that students from under-served communities encountered obstacles that hindered their effort to attend college. Based on comments from the President, colleges throughout the country would be judged based on criteria including loan debt, graduation rates and after college income. Supporters believed the ratings system would hold post-secondary institutions accountable by creating transparency. However, some policymakers, college administrators and stakeholders raised concerns including: (1) the government exceeding their right to evaluate schools and (2) the impact the system would have on institutions that serve predominantly students from under-served communities including historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs). Concerns from the HBCU community regarding the proposed system would continue throughout the development process.

Members of the HBCU community were apprehensive because of complications relating to 2011 changes to the PLUS loan program, which impacted school attrition rates. Several HBCUs experienced a drop in enrollment because of new loan guidelines that disqualified low income and middle class families. Subsequently, some HBCUs implemented cost cutting measures including eliminating staff and curtailing programs. Traditionally HBCUs enroll low income and first generation college students. Consequently, regulatory or statutory changes can have a long-term impact on their ability to increase graduation rates.

Throughout the development process HBCU administrators and supporters lamented that the ratings system would have an equally devastating impact as the PLUS loan change. According to a study by the National Center for Education Statistics HBCUs were disproportionately impacted by the loan requirements in comparison to other post-secondary institutions. HBCUs were fearful that implementing a college ratings system would unfairly penalize universities dedicated to educating students from under-served communities.

The administration asserted that the new system would ensure all students had access to important information relating to cost, retention rates and student debt. Throughout his tenure President Obama has sought to level the playing field for first generation, minority and low-income students. For instance, the President outlined a free community college proposal that would likely increase college completion rates. However, despite the President’s record of supporting pathways to success for under-served students’ members of Congress opposed the college ratings system.

Senator Lamar Alexander, Chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee along with Congressman John Kline, Chairman of the House Education and Workforce Committee indicated they did not support a ratings system. Both members believed the plan was intrusive and would unnecessarily burden post-secondary institutions. In fact, Senator Alexander included language in a bill that would have blocked the Obama administration from implementing the system.

The controversy surrounding the system caused the U.S. Department of Education to announce that they will abandon the use of certain metrics. Post-secondary institutions will not be compared to other colleges based on graduation rates, student debt along with other measurables. As a result, HBCUs won’t have to worry about fighting comparisons to large post-secondary institutions with significant endowments. Holding HBCUs to the same standard as predominantly White institutions (PWIs) that educate students from middle class and affluent backgrounds would be difficult. Throughout their history HBCUs have encountered several obstacles including inequitable funding, which hinders their ability to fund scholarships and offer certain programs.

HBCUs continue to educate students from under-served communities. Their mission to enroll Black students with limited resources is consistent with President Obama’s call to open opportunities for all students. Without HBCUs students with limited social capital would not have the opportunity to attend college. HBCUs continue to play a critical role in preparing Black students to compete in the global marketplace. Thus, expanding opportunities for students from under-served backgrounds should include implementing policies that ensure HBCUs remain viable.

 

Read all of our posts about HBCUs by clicking here.

____________

Dr. Larry J. Walker is an educational consultant focused on supporting historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs). His research examines the impact environmental factors have on the academic performance and social emotional functioning of students from HBCUs.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Diversity, Equity

Keeping Our Eyes on Both Birds in Early Childhood Education

**The Edvocate is pleased to publish guest posts as way to fuel important conversations surrounding P-20 education in America. The opinions contained within guest posts are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of The Edvocate or Dr. Matthew Lynch.**

A guest post by Jack McCarthy

There is a growing consensus in the United States that early childhood education is important. The newest Education Commission of the States report highlighted that “total state funding for preschool programs increased by $767 million in the 2014-15 fiscal year to a total of nearly $7 billion.”

It’s the rare issue in U.S. politics with bipartisan support– 22 states with Republican governors and 10 states with Democratic governors (plus the District of Columbia) increasing funding for pre-k programs in 2015-16.

And it’s not hard to figure out why. When you listen to early childhood advocates, it sounds like investing in early childhood education is like investing in a super policy. It can close the achievement gap by getting all students on the same level from the start. It can close the gender pay gap by allowing mothers of all races and classes to continue working after having kids.

If we just invest in early childhood, then we can quickly, simply and easily, kill two birds with one stone.

Turns out, like everything else, it’s not quite that simple.

Early childhood education does have the potential to do two things at once. But only if we keep in mind that our policy has two goals.

First, there is the achievement gap. The first five years that you are alive are the most influential of your life. These are the years where your building blocks are set up, the years your brain’s architecture is shaped. In the first five years, your experiences have a direct impact on how well you develop learning skills as well as social and emotional abilities.

The achievement gap is largely a result of just how different experiences are for low-income students in the first five years.

Tracking families from every socio-economic group, research has shown that children born into low-income families heard, by age three, roughly 30 million fewer words than those from more affluent backgrounds. Stanford University analysis found an intellectual processing gap that appears as early as 18 months as a consequence.

Underserved students also begin school with much less well-developed background knowledge, numeracy, comprehension and behavioral skills than those acquired by classmates with parents of greater means. Because disadvantaged students arrive at kindergarten millions of words behind their peers and lack early learning skills, they perform much less well at school. Those negative effects last a lifetime.

The achievement gap is the result of socioeconomic circumstances setting students’ building blocks up very differently.

Debates about early childhood education often concentrate on the best way to increase access, which is important. But the conversation needs to distinguish between effective early learning and childcare. Effective early learning drives school readiness by developing cognitive and social-emotional skills.

Parents need a safe, affordable place for their children while they work. Society needs many of these children to be more prepared to succeed in school, careers and life.

Effective early learning should be defined in terms of important measurable outcomes that lead to success in school.  Programs need to constantly focus on assessing children’s cognitive and social-emotional skills and adjusting classroom interventions to address any shortcomings.

People in New Jersey saw the effect of focusing on quality first hand. In 1999-2000 the state began implementing NJ Supreme Court mandated high-quality preschool education in 31 of the highest poverty districts in the state. At the time, less than 15% of pre-K classrooms had a “good” or “excellent” quality rating. Nearly 25% had a “poor” rating.

The state focused on improving that quality through high standards, professional development, and a continuous improvement system. By 2007-08, the vast majority of classrooms had a “good” or “excellent” rating and very few had a “poor” quality rating.

A longitudinal study concluded that high-quality pre-K in New Jersey helped to close the achievement gap by about half over the next few years, with the gap closing more and more each year. In addition, the high-quality pre-K is estimated to have reduced grade repetition from 19% to 12% and special education from 17% to 12% through the fifth grade.

There’s a reason it’s referred to as effective early learning. And effective early learning is found all over the country—schools that focus on high standards, professional development, and continuous improvement systems are pretty apt at achieving high quality. It’s just that when people demand early childhood education, they tend not to demand those key aspects along with it.

But here is where the second goal comes in—closing the gender pay gap. According to the National Women’s Law Center, on average, childcare costs more than rent. As a result, women, especially women making the minimum wage, tend to drop out of the workforce when they have children. And, after caring for those children for years, it’s that much harder to move back into the workforce at the same rate of pay as when you left.

We need to remember that while there is a difference between school that is focused on learning and school that is a place for children to go, there is a paramount need for a place for children to go in this country.

If we ignore quality in favor of access, we risk early childhood education being unable to close the achievement gap. If we ignore access in favor of quality, we risk early childhood education being unable to close the gender pay gap.

The solution is to use the bipartisan support and the money states are investing in pursuit of both access and quality. To provide childcare while not ignoring any and all opportunities for effective early learning within it. Doing so can maximize the return on our investment and solve both problems at once.

The first five years are the most critical of a child’s life. And, the first five years are critical for their mother’s lives as well. Let’s keep both people in mind when investing in early childhood and we’ll all benefit from the result.

 

Click here to read all our posts concerning the Achievement Gap.

____

Jack McCarthy is President and CEO of AppleTree Institute for Education Innovation and AppleTree Early Learning Public Charter School. Jack advocates passionately to influence early education policy and practice to help close the achievement gap before kindergarten.

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

Have for-profit schools preyed on minorities?

Turn on your television to any local station during daytime hours, and you’re sure to see a handful of commercials touting the amazing benefits of enrolling in for-profit colleges. These idyllic spots highlight flexible classes, accelerated programs, online classes available from the comfort of home, and more. Usually the information about the particular college is delivered by a once-uneducated person turned career success – often a working dad, or single mom, whose kids are clearly proud of what the parent has accomplished. Obtaining a college education, particularly from the school mentioned, looks so easy to do.

While the description above may seem like the stuff of marketing clichés, it’s a tactic that has worked for many for-profit colleges. Targeting minorities and other non-traditional college students through commercials like these has been the bread-and-butter of for-profit schools for at least the past two decades and those tactics are just now starting to see some legal pushback.

To be clear, not all for-profit colleges are created equal. There are some that boast high graduation rates and seem to have student success at the heart of their endeavors. The very fact that these colleges exist have actually progressed the entire university system in the U.S. by pushing innovative programs, like online degrees, and showing that there truly is a large market for non-traditional college students.

Let’s not kid ourselves though. The non-profit college push is a very thinly-veiled attempt to enroll a volatile market – often the most eligible for federal loan and grant assistance.

The financial facts speak for themselves:

  • As of 2014, for-profit colleges served just 13 percent of total higher education students but received 31 percent of federal student loans due to the minority, at-risk and low-income statuses of their students. Former veterans cashing in GI Bills also attend for-profit schools at higher rates than traditional colleges.
  • The same report from the U.S. Department of Education reports that half of all students who default on their loans attend a for-profit college.

Which leads to the unavoidable question: Have non-profit colleges preyed upon at-risk students for the sake of making a quick buck?

All the right words

One of the reasons for-profit schools have seen such a surge in enrollment in the past two decades can really be pinned on the smart marketing of two words: flexibility and acceleration. For students who simply did not have the funds, nor desire to incur college debt, right after high school, for-profit schools have stepped up as a second chance, of sorts. These colleges are places where non-traditional students can continue to work and take flexible courses, many or all of which are online. Most for-profit schools also offer a faster route to degree attainment, which piques the interest of students who don’t want to dedicate years of their lives to college aspirations but are looking for a way to advance their careers. The University of Phoenix, perhaps the most recognizable name in for-profit online colleges, recently announced a new initiative to count other course work and work experience towards degree attainment. This initiative, and others like it, are designed to recruit students who don’t want to start from square one and don’t have the time to commit to a traditional college experience.

So what is wrong with either of these options? Nothing, in theory. Flexibility and accelerated degrees are a good fit for many students who otherwise could not chase any sort of college degree. Where many non-profits fail their students, however, is in charging astronomical rates and not offering enough support to keep students enrolled until graduation. In essence, these schools market well enough to get the students enrolled in courses but don’t do enough to guide them to their degrees. All the flexibility in the world can’t help a student understand a difficult concept, or learn better time/study management skills. Accelerated programs without mentorship options run the risk of burning students out, especially if they have no inspiration or focus.

It’s clear that the recent outcry for accountability for non-profit colleges is long overdue. Students deserve better than what they’ve been served by these institutions, and quite frankly, so does the entire American population. It’s time for these schools to deliver on their promise of career success for those who enroll – and that starts with student support that extends beyond recruitment.

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

5 trends in college diversity to look for in 2016

Student protests. Strikes by football teams. High-profile officials resigning. In 2015, equality and fair representation on college campuses saw the media spotlight and people across the nation took note. The past year set the foundation for potentially big strides in diversity, inclusion and equality on college campuses in 2016 – but only if advocates take advantage of the spotlight for good.

Take a look at five ways I think diversity can, and will, improve on college campuses in 2016:

More student input.

2015 was a pivotal year of college students being vocal about their treatment, and that of their peers, by university administration. An interesting (yet obvious) lesson emerged: Colleges that do not take the complaints of their students seriously will face the consequences.

Case in point: The University of Oklahoma versus the University of Missouri. At Oklahoma, when students publicly called out a fellow student for chanting racial slurs in an online video that went viral, the university’s president acted quickly to expel the student and speak out publicly against what the video portrayed. At the University of Missouri, however, there were months of unrest after racial slurs were allegedly used by some white students, that launched other accusations of university discrimination. It took student protests, hunger strikes, and a threatened strike by the football team before some peace among students was reached. As a result, two administrators (including university president Tim Wolfe) resigned.

Colleges have to find the balance between acting too quickly and simply appearing to not care. The University of Missouri was guilty of the latter. Expect student complaints regarding equality on campus and other student-treatment issues to be taken more seriously in 2016 and for diversity to improve as a result.

Broader definition of diversity.

Cultivating diversity on college campuses is not just about race and ethnicity. It encompasses gender, age and life stage. Colleges will continue to increase the recruitment of first-generation, LGBTQ+, non-traditional, out-of-state, and international students to create a more diverse atmosphere. This will include a more conscious effort on the part of admitting officials but will also require more targeted recruitment.

Chief Diversity Officers.

The University of Connecticut and Ithaca College made headlines in 2015 when they added a new position to their executive suite: Chief Diversity Officer. While universities have long had diversity task forces and even full-time staff members who work to improve diversity on campus, the move to add such a prominent position is promising.

As more colleges follow suit, the position needs to be more than a figurehead. An editorial for UConn’s The Daily Campus sums it up by saying:

“The hope is that these recommendations hit their mark and help increase diversity in both the student body and faculty. The effort the administration is employing is seen and appreciated. The expectation now is that these efforts are fruitful, and bring meaningful change.”

Earlier recruitment.

Colleges are realizing that if minorities, first-generation students, and other pupils who are considered at-risk are target demographics for their upcoming graduating classes, then recruitment needs to start early. Think middle school, or even earlier. Waiting until junior or senior year of high school presents the risk that the students have already ruled out the possibility of college. Guiding younger students through what it takes to get into college, from grade expectations to community service requirements, ensures that more of the students who give up on college before they have even tried get a real shot at going, and graduating.

Expect more colleges to join the Coalition for Access, Affordability and Success which replaces the Common Application with a portfolio process for college acceptance that starts in 9th grade.

Data for retention.

Getting a diverse group of students on campus is just the first step in maintaining a multi-faceted population. Retention, especially among at-risk groups, is a big problem for universities. Many are turning to technology to anticipate problems and reach out to students at risk for dropping out long before they do. Virginia Commonwealth University is one example of a school reaching out to a tech consulting firm to learn more about its students and help struggling students before they withdraw.

Data is used for so many aspects of college life – expect to see more schools tapping it to recruit and maintain diverse student bodies.

 

What trends are hoping to see in college diversity in 2016?

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Diversity, Equity, list, Matthew Lynch

3 Challenges and Rewards of Educating Undocumented Students in America

Immigration reform has been a hot button issue in the United States for decades. Earlier this year, the Obama administration, along with members of the Republican Party, outlined a plan for comprehensive immigration reform. When they sit down to work out the details, it is critical that higher education finds its way to the center of the discussion. A college education is a virtual prerequisite for securing the American dream and currently it is an option that is off the table for more than one million undocumented students.

Let’s have a look at some of the challenges (and triumphs) that come with educating undocumented immigrants in America.

1. $761 million. That’s the amount that the surge of undocumented immigrants was projected to cost the US in 2014. The estimation from the Federation for American Immigration Reform issued a report on the 37,000 illegal immigrant minors after analyzing data from the Department of Health and Human Services and education funding formulas in all fifty states.

The majority of student immigrants came to the US from Central America.

While some aren’t thrilled about the additional costs of teaching the immigrants, immigrants’ rights groups say that it’s a small price to pay to help these children in need.

Jorge Baron of the Northwest Immigrant Rights Projects said, “We’re one of the wealthiest countries in the world. We should be able to handle this if we focus our energy and some resources and we make sure that kids are treated well, and treated the way we, in America believe kids should be treated.”

The battle of education funding is one that never ceases. The recent recession zapped available dollars; most states in the US are still spending less per student than they did six years ago in 2008. The addition of so many immigrants has spread the education money even more thin — but is the cost worth it?

2. Obama has worked to protect the interests of undocumented K-12 school students in America. The Obama administration has strengthened its stance on protecting public schools students who are undocumented immigrants. The policy includes guidelines on appropriate and inappropriate enrollment practices and they take the place of similar wording from 2011. The administration says that the reason for the enhanced language is due to 17 filed complaints on school enrollment policies in school districts in New Mexico, Colorado, North Carolina, Louisiana, Ohio, Michigan, Georgia and even Washington D.C.

In referencing the new parts of the policy, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan said “Our message is simple: Let all children living in your district enroll in school.”

The guidelines are just a small piece of a larger push for immigration reform from the Obama Administration, which is hoping to put enough pressure on Senators that some action for larger immigration reform is taken before summer recess that starts in August.

In 2011, Obama showed his support for immigrants and their right to education when he enacted the Dream Act that halted deportations of students and in some cases, their families. While the student portion of this legislation got a lot of attention, it also took a closer look at avoiding deportations of low-priority immigrant without criminal records.

3. Children of immigrants get the short end of the stick as far as higher education is concerned. In a conversation I had with Luis G. Pedraja, Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs at Antioch University in Los Angeles, he that not allowing the children of illegal immigrants access to higher education has some far-reaching impacts.

“Children of illegal immigrants face limited prospects, greater financial burdens, a lack of support networks, and fear. While some states allow undocumented students to attend state institutions, pay in-state tuition, or provide some level of state financial aid, many states bar them from even enrolling. In addition, they cannot receive federal financial aid, loans, or work-study money. Because of their status, most of them will not find substantial employment that will allow them to pay tuition. Unless they receive scholarships, the majority of private universities will be out of reach. The few who do attend colleges most likely will have to work several low paying jobs to cover living expenses and tuition while they attend classes, often preventing them from full-time studies. In addition, they must cope with the constant fear of deportation for them and their families,” he said.

I believe that educating immigrants is something the US should do with their heads held high. These young students crossed the border to our country and giving them the gift of education is our responsibility. These unaccompanied minors are worth investing in; the face of America is changing and the radical transformation is largely due to immigrants. Educating today’s school-age immigrants and giving them access to higher education means better workers in the future – these educated students will positively impact the wealth of this country.

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

Minority faculty revisited: Why is America so disproportionate?

If America is the land of opportunity, then earning a college degree is the key to really tapping the potential of that opportunity. In the last century going to college has transitioned from something reserved for the elite to something that everyday citizens can aspire to do (with enough financial aid). There’s certainly a case to be made for the need for more diversity on college campuses, but overall our nation’s university system is improving the variety of students on campus and making the experience attainable to all class levels. It’s not perfect; but there’s a push to improve.

One area where colleges and universities consistently fall short, however, is in the number of minority faculty they employ. There are not enough professors of color. There are not enough women. There are not enough who represent the LBGTQ+ community. If we truly want our student body to be diverse and feed into a diverse workplace, we need to start where those students are earning their educations.

Not an accurate representation

Compared to the general U.S. population, diversity in college faculty is much lower. This isn’t to say that all the professors are white, of European descent (though that number is high) though. A recent report from Mother Jones found that:

At some schools, like Harvard, Stanford, the University of Michigan, and Princeton, there are more foreign teachers than Hispanic and black teachers combined.

So we are hiring diverse faculty members on a global stage, but not a national one. There are an estimated 41.7 Black Americans, and an estimated 54 million Hispanic ones, according to the 2010 U.S. Census numbers. That comes out to about 13.2 percent and 17 percent of the total U.S. population, respectively. To put this in perspective, there are student protests going on at Michigan public universities, demanding that 10 percent of faculty members be African American. When you take urban areas like Detroit (where 84.3 percent of the population is Black) into account, asking for 10 percent is a drop in the bucket – yet students are rallying to get the support to make it happen.

Can we change?

So the real question in all of this is not so much “is this happening?” but “what can we do to change this?” The first part is awareness which it seems we are achieving.

The second part is for schools to take on the responsibility and step up to change it. That isn’t happening on as wide a scale as it should, but there are glimmers of hope that adding more minority faculty members is on the horizon for a good number of schools. A few good examples include:

  • Brown University, which has announced that it is dedicating $100 million to look into diversity and race issues on its campus in the next decade. The faculty at the Providence campus is overwhelmingly white and male.
  • Lewis & Clark College in Oregon planned a diversity forum for December 7 after a Rwandan student reported being assaulted because of his skin color. The school’s president Barry Glasner has also said an action plan is being put in place to improve diversity in faculty and students, as well as race relations at the school.
  • The University of Connecticut plans to hire a Chief Diversity Officer who will works towards improving diversity of the student population AND of faculty and staff. UConn’s president Susan Herbst has said publicly that she was disappointed in the lack of diverse faculty members when she first arrived on campus four years ago and that UConn is severely lacking in an area where it really should shine. The trend of hiring Chief Diversity Officers is a positive one, as long as these executives are really empowered to make changes.

In the end, more minorities on college faculty only serves the benefit of everyone. It gives minority students realistic role models and gives non-minority students the chance to work with professors who may not look like them. Even the colleges themselves benefit from the added life experiences these minority faculty members bring to the table. In order to tap into the potential of a truly diverse, truly experience-rich college experience, we need to pay just as much attention to the variety in our faculty as we do to our students.

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

Is there a conspiracy to destroy HBCUs?

By Matthew Lynch

There’s no denying that Historically Black Colleges and Universities have had a tremendous impact on the education levels of the black community. Since their founding, these campuses have served underdog students – first-generation, minority and other at-risk college attendees. The question of HBCU relevance is constantly floated in education circles but lately I’ve been pondering an even more poignant query: Is there a conspiracy to destroy Historically Black Colleges and Universities?

Of course the word “conspiracy” makes it sound like a top-secret, well-orchestrated attempt to eliminate these colleges from the higher education landscape. I don’t believe that is the case exactly, but there are certainly some factors that seem to hurt HBCUs more greatly than PWIs.

Policies that hurt HBCUs

For those who believe there is a conspiracy afoot, there are all sorts of reasons they believe so. Here are a couple of the most common:

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

Online schools targeting minorities. Perhaps the largest factor crippling HBCUs today is the prevalence of online college programs. From schools like the University of Phoenix which is completely online to individual programs offered by traditional campus schools, students who need college-work-family flexibility are finding it outside HBCU campuses. All demographics have flocked to online schooling, but minorities have been especially targeted. HBCUs have traditionally been viewed as places for underdogs, but online schooling programs have overtaken that description with the combination of convenience and a wide array of programs.

Policies to merge HBCUs. Governors like Louisiana’s Bobby Jindal and Mississippi’s former governor Haley Barbour have announced plans to merge HBCUs with each other or other predominantly white institutions in moves that are intended to slash state operating costs. Treating any two HBCUs as institutions that are alike enough to merge without incident is flawed though. Planning to merge a HBCU with a predominantly white schools is even more off-base. These individual schools have their own histories, their own student cultures. Perhaps it makes financial sense to merge HBCUs with others similar in size or scope, but it undermines the collective institutions, undercutting their autonomy and what they can offer to potential students.

Ways HBCUs hurt themselves

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

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

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

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

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

The combination of outside factors and internal issues has created a perfect storm when it comes to declining enrollment and revenue at HBCUs. I still believe these institutions have an important place in the U.S. college landscape but will have to fight just a little bit harder to stay relevant.

Read all of our posts about HBCUs by clicking here.

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

What We Should Tell Our College Students, instead of “Toughen Up”

In a piece for The Washington Post, Ferentz Lafargue, the director for the Davis Center which explores positive social change at Williams College in Massachusetts, pushes back against the mentality that protecting college students from hate speech and discrimination “coddles them.”

Lafargue’s comments come on the heels of two cancelled speakers on the campus that had unpopular views. The first, conservative Suzanne Venker who has voiced her opinion that feminism has failed, and the second John Derbyshire, a mathematician who once wrote for the National Review until his writing revealed him to have racist views. Venker’s appearance was cancelled following student backlash and Derbyshire’s was cancelled by the university president himself.

Lafargue applauds the university’s actions in both cases. He counters that allowing such speakers at the expense of college students does not prepare them for the real world. It implies that wanting to change those attitudes is wrong.

In the piece, Lafargue writes:

The real culprits — on campuses and in the real world — are the persistent effects of homophobia, income inequality, misogyny, poverty, racism, sexism, white supremacy and xenophobia. When students refuse to accept discrimination on college campuses, they’re learning important lessons about how to fight it everywhere.

Larfargue’s spot-on analysis got me thinking a little more about the role of college campuses in changing the future “real world” that exists after students earn their degrees. Instead of telling these students to toughen up, perhaps we should tell them these things instead:

Your words matter.

Whether you are speaking out against injustice, or belittling a peer, what you say makes an impact on the larger world. This goes for verbal words that come directly out of your mouth and those that are written – in emails, in texts, on social media, and more. Use those words to lift others up and to further causes that benefit society and beyond. You do not need to tolerate the words of another that offend you – ever. Know who you are and speak those truths into existence.

You don’t deserve discrimination.

Hate, intolerance and judgement are not just acceptable parts of life. They are wrong, plain and simple. Just because they exist, and have since the dawn of time, does not make them a part of your life that you must simply deal with and move past. You cannot change the way a particular person thinks or acts but always recognize that the fault is with them, not you. It’s not your job to adjust to a world that discriminates you unfairly, nor is it ever your doing.

Progress is hard – but worth it.

The road to positive change is full of obstacles. Sometimes working towards that change is downright disheartening. This doesn’t mean to just accept the status quo. It means to work even harder to push back against the negative viewpoints and deep-rooted belief systems that are holding that progress back. It’s not an easy task to steer a ship a new direction, especially one that goes against the current, but it’s necessary to get to a new place. Never stop fighting the good fight. Eventually, with persistence and optimism, you will win.

Youth is not a disadvantage.

Don’t ever let anyone tell you that you that your lack of years lessens your importance. Your viewpoint matters just as much, if not more, than those whose opinions are more about hardened lines than true progress. Use your voice and all of that youthful passion to blaze new trails. Your inexperience in the ways of the world makes you an asset to it because your choices are based less on outside influence.

You are safe here.

At least while you are on this campus, and a student at this school, we will have your best interest at heart. Nowhere in our university mission does it say that we strive to toughen you up for the real world by allowing you to be attacked, verbally or otherwise. You matter to us. You are protected. You are a priority.

 

We can’t coddle our college students by insisting they demand fairness. Let’s stand behind them as they continue the good work to progress past discrimination and backward thinking. Let’s believe together that the next iteration of the real world ushered in by our best and brightest will be an even better one than what we see today.

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

How to Cultivate More Diversity in College Coaching

If there was ever a space to easily incorporate more diversity on college campuses, it’s in athletics. From physical trainers to marketing offices to head coaching spots, it’s a sub area of the college landscape that benefits greatly from varied backgrounds and points of view.

Richard Lapchick of the University of Central Florida has published his Racial and Gender Report Card: College Sport since the early 2000s. Lapchick is the director of The Institute for Diversity and Ethics in Sport (TIDES) at UCF and his latest version of the report evaluates racial and gender issues in college sports in 2014.

The latest report has the worst combined grades for racial and gender hiring numbers for college sports since the report was first issued.  Of the dismal stats, Lapchick said: “It was especially bad news that the opportunity for people of color among men’s and women’s basketball head coaches declined significantly.”

According to the numbers, and Lapchick himself, the state of diversity in college coaching is actually getting worse.

So how did we get here? Colleges are supposedly some of the most progressive places in the nation, and we continue to see problems with hiring practices when it comes to racial and gender diversity – in administrations, in tenure-track professorships, and in athletics. Perhaps the more important question, though, is what we should do now to improve the diversity in college athletics, especially coaching. Colleges can take a few immediate steps to try to remedy the situation, including to:

Take a cue from pro sports.

While professional sports certainly have their own share of diversity problems, they at least have some policies in place to turn that tide. The most visible of these is the Rooney Rule, a National Football League policy that makes it mandatory for all teams to interview minority applicants when there are head coaching or senior leadership positions open. There are certainly those who have pointed out, and rightly so, that the Rooney Rule isn’t having as big a positive impact as intended. Still, the mere awareness the publicity surrounding it has brought to the lack of diversity in the NFL, and other professional sports leagues, is worth noting. Colleges should do the exact same thing and they should start by looking at the candidates already working in their programs or athlete alumni members.

Put players on coaching tracks.

Leadership on college teams doesn’t just happen from above. There are players within the team ranks who rise above and exhibit traits worthy of leaders. These players may not always have the best stats, or the most acclaim, but they are evident in the way they treat their teammates and strategize the game. When coaches see these players, they need to speak up and encourage these young players to consider coaching later on. Colleges need to take it one step further and offer coaching-track training for these players and recruit them before they ever step off the playing field.

Start small.

The head coaches get most of the spotlight when it comes to sports, professional and college, but there are plenty of other opportunities for diversity. A college that truly wants diversity at the highest levels of sports organizations needs to start by looking for opportunities to hire minorities and women in the lower spots too. By doing this, colleges can build a feeder system of diverse candidates who can aspire to the highest positions and will arrive at them more than qualified.

Hire more women.

It’s common for men to be head coaches on women’s teams, but incredibly rare for women to coach men. At the very least, women should be coaching their own sports. There are plenty of positions that women are more than capable of filling in the positions on the way to top spots, too. Rather than writing off college sports as too tough or “manly” for women, the culture surrounding it needs to shift to view the input of women as equally valuable as their male counterparts.

Diversity in college coaching won’t just happen on its own. It will take targeted initiatives from individual colleges and universities and the entire college athletic system as a whole. That starts with recognition of a problem and the right leadership to step up and vow to better the situation.

  • no reactions
0
Share