Equity

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 Equity, Higher Education, Matthew Lynch

Diverse Conversations: Mentoring Minority Faculty

Minority faculty find themselves at a huge disadvantage at institutions controlled by people of European descent. To discuss some of the ways in which institutions can ensure that minority faculty members are properly mentored and guided, I recently sat down with Olympia Duhart, Co-President of the Society of American Law Teachers (SALT), which has been hugely instrumental in promoting programs to address this important issue.

Q: Minority faculty have a particularly hard time in traditional universities – what has been your experience in terms of the specific reasons for this?

A: Difficulties experienced by traditionally underrepresented faculty members can often be traced to the lack of both institutional and informal support systems in place. Both schools and faculty members should be intentional and explicit about offering support for minority faculty. Often, colleagues with good intentions have no perspective or context for the additional difficulties faced by faculty of color. Someone has to start the conversation.

Q: What are some of the specific challenges for minority faculty and some of the symptoms of their struggle? There was an article recently in Diverse (in 2012) that suggested minority faculty experience higher levels of job related stress. Have you observed these kinds of trends in your experience? If so, what strategies have worked to combat these types of problems?

A: Given the multiple responsibilities imposed on faculty members and the increasing workload many of us are juggling today, it is not surprising that faculty members are often struggling with job-related stress. Adding an extra layer of otherness to those duties – and the especially low numbers of faculty of color in the law school arena – makes things even more challenging. Even faculty members who do not deal with institutional bias are coping on a regular basis with microaggressions in the form of bias in student evaluations, slights by colleagues and an expectation that we have to be more qualified than our non-minority counterparts. In my own experience, I have also struggled with “imposter syndrome” – fueled in large part by the novelty of being a woman of color from a low socio-economic background without so-called fancy credentials. Thanks in large part to mentoring and support I’ve received from colleagues – of all backgrounds – I’ve reframed my story. I take great pride in bringing a unique perspective to the table, and I am even more proud to do my part to inspire students who share my background.

Q: Shifting emphasis slightly, what are some of the strategies used at the Society of American Law Teachers to mentor minority faculty?

A: One of SALT’s core values is diversity. It informs our work within and beyond the classroom. It also drives us to create programming that will increase minority representation on both sides of the podium. We strive to promote education equality in all arenas. This translates to our formal mentoring program, “Breaking In” programs designed to increase the numbers of minority law teachers, tips for new teachers at our teaching conference, programing for diversity in law school leadership and BA to JD Pipeline Programs held throughout the country to increase access to law school for students of color. After all, a diverse law school student population is the foundation for more diversity among law faculty. But one of our most successful strategies has been the network we sustain through our members. Each SALT member is committed to offering support to underrepresented faculty members. Sometimes the support means advocating on their behalf to protect tenure and security of position. Other times that support means sharing a syllabus. And sometimes it means taking the time to listen and offer some advice.

Q: Which of these strategies has been the most successful?
A: The national network of law professors available through the engagement with SALT has been invaluable for many people. For me, it truly opened up a world of mentors, advisors and friends who have made this profession rewarding. It’s also given me a chance to play my part in honoring the special social responsibilities that come with the practice of law. Furthermore, I was also very lucky to have so many people in place at my home institution (Nova Southeastern University) who embraced me. One of the most important lessons I’ve learned is to take advantage of the mentoring opportunities available to you. And it is very important to think about the mentor you select. For me, it has always been important to connect with people who engage with the world around them.

Q: What do you feel are the most effective strategies for mentoring minority faculty in general? Would you say what works at Nova Southeastern University is representative and consistent with what works at most other types of institutions?

A: It’s not a mystery. We need more representation. Isolation can have a negative impact on anyone’s ability to thrive. The “critical mass” we talk about among the student body is also important among faculty. A diverse faculty is essential for a robust classroom and effective legal advocacy. Most importantly, it is a crucial component of training students to succeed in a diverse society. At Nova Southeastern University’s Shepard Broad Law Center, we are very fortunate to have a Director of Faculty Development who provides a structured support system for all faculty members through scholarship critique, one-on-one advice and a no-risk environment for teaching development. In my role as Director of the Lawyering Skills and Value Program, I have also worked deliberately to showcase diversity in our skills program. For instance, for the first-year oral arguments we made a dedicated effort to reach out to voluntary bar associations to judge the competition. It was important to expose the students to practicing attorneys from the Muslim Bar, the Gay and Lesbian Lawyers Network, the Cuban American Bar Association and the Caribbean Bar Association, among others, to dispel their assumptions about what a lawyer looks like. This type of support serves the students, but it is also empowering to minority faculty. In addition, faculty members benefit tremendously from informal support. People have helped me by talking me through a tough time, dropping an email and treating me with me respect. They have invited me over for dinner, collaborated with me in the classroom and challenged me when I needed it. I also do my best to mentor others by reaching out to junior faculty, offering to moot a presentation, read a paper or work through a teaching idea. We get to carry each other.

Q: What advice would you give to administrators and those in charge of mentoring minority faculty?

A: First, start a conversation. It is important to keep the discussions open about the hurdles that still exist. Until we can talk honestly about the barriers still in place because of racism, sexism, homophobia, and other types of bigotry, we can’t even begin to start thinking critically about correcting those disparities. But more importantly, follow up the talk with action. Place minority faculty members in leadership roles. Confront the biases that still infect the classroom. Support efforts to educate faculty about the importance of cultural competency. Connect diversity in the classroom to the broader issue of social justice. Create a culture in your institution that encourages diverse viewpoints.

Q: What are some of the strategies for recruiting minority faculty and helping them integrate into the existing faculty and administrative organization of an institution?

A: It always surprises me when people say they can’t find any minority faculty members or administrators. I see excellent candidates for teaching and leadership positions all the time. However, one constant obstacle I’ve observed is the need for “experience.” That, of course, is key. But elevating traditional experience into a super-factor is often a tool for eliminating stellar candidates to teach or lead. Exclusions based on factors that appear to be race or gender-neutral often operate to the exclusion of underrepresented minority groups. Until the academy becomes more diverse, the over emphasis on traditional experience will often eliminate large segments of the population. Institutions should challenge themselves to think more expansively about the type of faculty and administrators they want to support. And what kind of experience they want to value.

Q: What resources have you found to be most useful to support the mentoring of minority faculty?

A: Just talking about diversity is never enough. The best resources move beyond messaging into movement. At the university level, there are a few avenues to consider. Is there an organized, concerted effort to promote inclusion? Is there a financial commitment to diversity initiatives? Is diversity a recognized and promoted value for the university? Is there training for minority faculty? Is there education of the larger faculty, students and community about the value of diversity? Is there a culture that encourages mentoring? Is there a sense of community and collaboration in the university setting? On the broader level – such as through organizations such as SALT – those avenues change. Through volunteer efforts by dedicated law teachers who are willing to give up their valuable time to mentor others, we have made great strides in supporting minority faculty. We are proud of the progress we have made, but there is still so much work to do. The most useful tools to advance the mentoring of minority faculty bolster diversity through specific acts, creative ideas and hard work.

This concludes our interview. Thank you to Professor Olympia Duhart, J.D., for participating in this interview.

 

  • 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 Equity, Matthew Lynch, Policy & Reform

Economy Improves, School Spending Continue to Fall – So What Gives?

As the news headlines regarding the current U.S. economy continue to improve, there is one area that is still feeling the squeeze from the recession years: K-12 public school spending. A report this month from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities found that 34 states are contributing less funding on a per student basis than they did prior to the recession years. Since states are responsible for 44 percent of total education funding in the U.S., these dismal numbers mean a continued crack down on school budgets despite an improving economy.

In practical terms, these findings make sense. Property taxes pay much of public education costs and that revenue source is still low. Overall, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities found that districts collected just over 2 percent lower on property taxes ending in March than in the year before. Furthering the problem is the fact that while states have been cut throat in reducing spending, they have not been as vigilant in raising revenue sources through taxes and fees.

Loss of federal aid to states is also a problem. Even if a state does not need emergency federal funds for specific education needs, they must use school money to cover the cost of natural disasters or other projects that are no longer receiving aid from the federal government.

In extreme cases, like in Philadelphia and Chicago, individual districts have had to tap into other money and reserves to cover the basics of public education in their areas. Take a look at some of the most-telling numbers from the CBPP report on school spending:

14. This is the number of consecutive quarters state revenues have increased, despite stagnant or reduced school spending.

1.3. This is the percent that state funding fell for elementary and secondary schools from last school year.

20. This is the percent that Oklahoma and Alabama have sliced on student spending since the recession began in 2008.

13. This is the number of states, including Wisconsin and California, that have cut school spending budgets by more than 10 percent since the recession began.

15. This represents the number of states that have lower school spending budgets than they did one year ago.

72. This is the amount in dollars that New Mexico increased its per student spending for the current school year. It may seem like a bright spot, but barely dents the $960+ the state has cut per student in just the past five years alone.

20,100. This is the number of teaching jobs that were added in August – but that figure is still over 320,000 less than education jobs in 2008.

12. This is the percent that funding to low-income Title I schools has decreased since 2010, from $17 billion to $15 billion.

11. This is the percent that special education funding has been slashed since 2010, from $13.5 billion to $12 billion.

57. This is the amount of administrators that believe they will need to reduce class sizes this school year to offset budget cuts.

16. This is the number of states that cut pre-K educational per student funding in the 2011 – 2012 school year and 27 had to reduce enrollment numbers.

What do the numbers all mean?

The fact that state revenues are on the upswing but K-12 spending is still at recession-levels is disheartening. It seems that a reprioritization needs to take place in the 34 states that are still in the red when it comes to per student spending today as opposed to 2008. Less state spending on education certainly affects the learning experience but it also impacts other areas of the economy. Unemployed teachers and administrators have less to pump back into the economy and the viscous cycle of K-12 underfunding is furthered.

If we cannot find the funding for our public schools how can we expect things like the achievement gap to close or high school graduation rates to rise? It was understandable that budgets had to be slashed when the bottom dropped out of the economy but now that we are in a more stable place, it is time to get back to funding what matters most: the education of our K-12 students.

Why do you think that per student spending is still falling?

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

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

Bilingual Education: 5 Reasons it should be Required

By Matthew Lynch

This generation of K-12 students is growing up in a society that is increasingly bilingual.  While foreign language requirements have long been a core requirement for high school graduation—second language classes at an earlier age would improve overall fluency for most students.  It’s time to introduce second-language concepts to the youngest of K-12 students, and here are just a few of the reasons why:

1. Bilingual Children have an Academic Advantage.  Studies in language development show that when young children have more exposure to all languages at an early age, it actually gives them a distinct academic advantage throughout life. There is often an argument that students should first master the English language before branching out to others – but why can’t both be taught simultaneously? Bilingual children are able to focus more intently on the topics at hand and avoid distractions from academic pursuits. They are also able to demonstrate higher levels of cognitive flexibility, or the ability to change responses based on environment and circumstances.

2.  Bilingualism Improves Life-Long Learning Skills. For children to truly see the full potential multi-lingualism has on learning, exposure to non-native languages should actually begin long before Kindergarten.  However, even children who learn their first Spanish words at the age of 5 can benefit from dual language curriculum. Learning is learning. The more that children can take advantage of new concepts, the more in tune their brains will be to all learning throughout life. Some studies have also found that the aging of the brain is slower and the employment rate is higher in adults with bilingual capabilities. Why not set kids up for success and strengthen long-term brain health while we are at it?

3. It Helps to Remove International Language Barriers.  There are also the cultural benefits to children learning two languages together. The children who come from English-speaking homes can lend their language expertise to friends from Spanish-speaking homes, and vice versa. Contemporary communication technology has eliminated many global barriers when it comes to socialization and even doing business. It makes sense that language boundaries should also come down and with help from our K-12 education system, that is possible.

4.  It Leads to Collaborative Learning.  Dual language programs show students a broader world-view, whatever the native language of the student, and lead to greater opportunities for collaborative learning. We should not limit what children learn based on outdated principles masked in patriotism.

5. Early Bilingual Education Increases Fluency in Later Years. It generally takes 5–7 years to be proficient in a second language.  Second-generation Hispanic children raised in the United States usually learn to speak English very well by adulthood, even though three-quarters of their parents speak mostly Spanish and are not English proficient.  However only 23 percent of first-generation immigrants from Spanish-speaking countries—those that began learning later in life, say they speak English very well.  Pew Hispanic Center statistics have shown that 88 percent of the members of the second generation—those children that were introduced to English at an early age, described themselves as strong English speakers.  This phenomenon should apply to children who speak English as their first language as well.  In other words, U.S. students should be introduced to a second language at a young age in order to be fluent by adulthood.  In fact, I believe that all K-12 students should have Spanish and English fluency by graduation.

By implementing bilingual options even younger, K-12 students stand to benefit long-term – both academically and in life. There really should be no reason why these students are not introduced to a second language as early as Kindergarten.

What is your opinion on mandating bilingual education programs in the future?

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

Allocating Resources to Improve Student Learning

Providing every child with an equal opportunity to learn has been a central challenge in public education. In fact, at its inception, universal public education in the United States was viewed as the “great equalizer.” Education was perceived, by some, as the vehicle through which individuals could rise above the social and economic circumstances which may have created longstanding barriers to reaching their potential as individuals and contributing citizens.

As the test of time has proven, education alone cannot address entrenched social problems; multiple institutions, policies and support systems are necessary to level the social and economic playing field. However, education is and will continue to be one of the primary means by which inequity can be addressed. Public funds will continue to be allocated in support of educational programs, and the rationale for these investments will likely continue to be that education creates social equity.

The purposeful and practical allocation of resources to support equitable access to high-quality learning opportunities, is a major component of education policy at the federal, state, and local levels. Leaders at all levels are charged with making decisions about how to effectively distribute and leverage resources to support teaching and learning.

Resource allocation consists of more than assigning dollar amounts to particular schools or programs. Equally, if not more important, is the examination of the ways in which those dollars are translated into actions that address expressed educational goals at various educational levels. In this respect, leaders are concerned not only with the level of resources and how they are distributed across districts, schools, and classrooms, but also with how these investments translate into improved learning.

It is critical for resource allocation practices to reflect an understanding of the imperative to eliminate existing inequities and close the achievement gap. All too often, children who are most in need of support and assistance attend schools that have higher staff turnover, less challenging curricula, less access to appropriate materials and technology, and poorer facilities.

Allocating and developing resources to support improvement in teaching and learning is critical to school reform efforts. Education policymakers must be informed about emerging resource practices and cognizant of the ways incentives can be used to create conditions that support teaching and learning.

Resource allocation in education does not take place in a vacuum. Instead, it often reflects policy conditions that form a context in which opportunities for effective leadership can be created. For example, effective leaders know how to use data strategically to inform resource allocation decisions and to provide insights about how productivity, efficiency, and equity are impacted by allocated resources.

The roles, responsibilities, and authority of leaders at each level of education also impacts whether and how they are able to allocate resources to particular districts, schools, programs, teachers, and students. Further, the type of governance structure that is in place also affects decisions about resources and incentives. Governance issues arise as leaders become involved in raising revenue and distributing educational resources. These activities involve multiple entities, including the voting public, state legislatures, local school boards, superintendents, principals, and teachers’ associations. Each of these connections can provide insights into how best to allocate resources and provide incentives that powerfully and equitably support learning, for both students and education professionals.

Resources necessary to operate a successful school or school district cannot be confined to dollars alone, however. Indeed, the resources needed to actively and fully support education are inherently complex and require an understanding that goes far beyond assessing the level of spending or how the dollars are distributed. Educational leaders must be able to examine the ways in which those dollars are translated into action by allocating time and people, developing human capital, and providing incentives and supports in productive ways.

Principals, district officials who oversee the allocation of resources, and state policymakers whose actions affect the resources the principal has to work with, are all concerned with three basic categories of resources:

1. Money. Activities at several levels of the system, typically occurring in annual cycles, determine both the amount of money that is available to support education and the purposes to which money can be allocated. No one level of the educational system has complete control over the flow, distribution, and expenditure of funds.

2. Human capital. People “purchased” with the allocated funds do the work of the educational system and bring differing levels of motivation and expertise developed over time through training and experience.

3. Time. People’s work happens within an agreed-upon structure of time (and assignment of people to tasks within time blocks) that allocates hours within the day and across the year to different functions, thereby creating more or less opportunity to accomplish goals.

These resources are thus intimately linked to one another. Each affects the other and even depends on the other to achieve its intended purpose. An abundance of money and time, for example, without the knowledge, motivation, and expertise of teachers (human capital) does little to maximize desired learning opportunities created for students.

Furthermore, an abundance of human capital without money or time to distribute it does little to alter practice in classrooms or to share expertise with others. From their position of influence over the acquisition, flow, and (intended) use of resources, educational leaders thereby undertake a massive attempt to coordinate, and render coherent, the relationships of the various resources to the goals they set out to achieve.

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

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

Diverse Conversations: Staying Afloat in Financially Turbulent Times

In these increasingly uncertain times, colleges and universities are forced to come up with innovative ways to deal with funding cutbacks and revenue shortfalls. In this installment of “Diverse Conversations,” Lewis Duncan, President of Rollins College, dispenses advice on how higher education institutions can strategically manage their resources in a manner that can help them thrive during these financially turbulent times.
In the face of unprecedented fiscal challenges, how can colleges and universities maximize their increasingly scarce resources?

Most private liberal arts institutions are highly dependent on student revenue. At Rollins College, for example, 86 percent of our total annual operating budget is derived from student revenue.

One way to maximize increasingly scarce resources is to find innovative ways to supplement the operating budget. Our approach was The Alfond Inn, a boutique hotel that opened in August 2013. The Inn, located a block from campus, not only meets a community need for lodging and conference space, but also provides full scholarships (tuition, room and board) for top students through The Alfond Scholars program — the College’s premier scholarship fund. Net operating income from the Inn will be directed to the scholarship fund for the next 25 years or until the endowment principal reaches $50 million, whichever comes later. The allowable spending from the endowment will supplement the operating budget in the form of additional financial aid support.

Q: What’s the value of your school’s endowment now compared to last year? How has this impacted the way that you allocate your university’s resources?

A: The market value of our endowment on May 31, 2013 was $349.1 million, which is an increase of $17.6 million over the previous year. Currently, our endowment provides approximately 10 percent of our annual operating costs, and that percentage has held constant through market fluctuations.

In addition to our endowment, we have invested in commercial real estate in the Winter Park community, which annually provides more than $2 million in net return in support of our operations. The real estate is also increasing in value and could be sold at some point in the future, which would add to our endowment investments.

Q: Given the current economic climate, how have you addressed the fragile balance of maintaining high academic standards with the need to keep enrollment high enough to pay the bills?

A: Rollins has experienced record enrollment in our undergraduate day programs each year for the past three years. We are now nearing 1,900 students, which is close to capacity. We are land locked and do not have the opportunity to continue to expand enrollment, which makes it even more important to look towards other sources for funds to help pay for the increasing costs of operations.

Through this growth period, we have been able to maintain our high academic standards with a low faculty-to-student ratio and continued recognition as the #1 comprehensive private liberal arts institution in the South as rated by US News & World Report. We will not compromise academic standards.

Q: What do you think should be done in terms of reforming the way we fund higher education in the United States?

A: We might find better incentives for families to plan long term and save for college. The current federal grants and loan programs actually advantage families who have not saved. Perhaps we could consider a partial tax deduction for such educational savings plans at the federal (rather than state) level. We also support additional measures of educational accountability, but urge that such standards consider the lifelong and career-long benefits of higher education, not just a graduate’s entry-level job or pay.

Q: As you look to Rollins College’s future, what new directions do you see the university taking?

A: We will be seeking to run the College as efficiently as possible while preserving the special values of a liberal arts education. We will also be pursuing new revenue opportunities in both degree and non-degree programs, expanding partnerships with similar small colleges using online and blended learning cooperative programs and expanding our traditional student body to include additional non-traditional and international students.

Well, that concludes my interview with President Duncan. I would like to thank him for consenting to this interview and for his contributions to the field of higher education and humanity in general.

 

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

Educational Change Starts with Equality

By Matthew Lynch

Substantial educational change will never occur until we as a country decide that enough is enough and make a commitment to change, no matter what it takes. When America realizes all children deserve a stellar education regardless of who their parents are, their socioeconomic status or where they happen to live, we will be able to reform our education system. Specifically, Americans have to stop treating minority students in underperforming urban environments like collateral damage.

The disheartening reality is that America has billions of dollars to fight a two-front war, but cannot or will not properly educate its children. If a hostile country attacked the U. S., it would take less than 24 hours for American troops to be mobilized into battle. However, we seem unable to mobilize a sea of educated teachers and administrators to wage war against academic mediocrity, which is a bigger threat to our national security than Iran or North Korea.

Over the last century, many reform movements have come and gone, but in the end, it seems, there have been no substantial changes. Some might even believe the American educational system is now worse off than ever. That’s because the word “reform” is primarily used as campaign rhetoric, and when it comes time to take real action, the politicians simply unveil a grandiose plan with all the bells and whistles amounting to a dog and pony show. There has been a lot of talk about educating our kids, but not a lot of action. This is especially true when it comes to groups of at-risk or disenfranchised students, like minorities.

America’s schools were originally intended to ensure that all citizens were literate but it seems today that in some districts, and for some students, even this concept is not taking place. When you add on the additional constraints of K-12 education today, it becomes quickly clear why some students fall through the cracks and are not able to achieve the type of education that should be a right for all American children.

Americans must have the courage to realize that in order for us to remain a world power, we must institute change. It is not enough for just some of our kids to succeed; each one must make it across the high school graduation stage, knowing what their peers also across the country also learned during the journey. The risks have never been greater: the future of our country and its children is at stake.

Education reform is possible, but it depends on what the nation is willing to do to achieve its educational goals. Will America develop and pass effective educational legislation aimed at creating viable solutions to the problem at hand? Or will America continue to develop legislation, such as No Child Left Behind, that operates under the fallacy that 100% of our students will be proficient in their core subjects by the end of 2014? The bar for education should be set higher, but there has to be exceptions and differentiated goals in order to effectively accommodate all the differences among teachers, students, administrators, and school cultures.

 

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

Why aren’t Most Minority High School Grads College-Ready?

It seems that graduating from high school is no longer the end goal of P-12 learning – earning a college degree has replaced it. By 2018, 60 percent of jobs will require a college degree. In a recent post, I wrote about the nationwide average high school graduation rate being 80 percent – which is admirable but also means that at least 1 in 5 kids won’t make it to college classes. When you factor in the high school graduates that bypass college completely, it seems that at some point America’s workforce will simply not be able to meet the demands of its employers.

When it comes to minorities who graduate high school and are ready for the rigor of college coursework, numbers are bleak. A new report from the College of Education at the University of Arizona found that less than 1 in 10 minority high school graduates in the state are adequately prepared for college. Non-minority students are not much better off though, with only 2 in 10 prepared for college after graduating from high school. A rise over the past 15 years in minority students in elementary and high school in state, as well as economic disparities between students of color and their white peers, are cited in the study as drivers behind the high school graduation-college readiness gap.

Arizona should not be singled out though. Of the 1.7 million high school graduates that opted for the ACT college entrance exam in 2012, only 60 percent were deemed “college-ready.”

Arizona is a standout example, though, of the way the changing landscape of the country is impacting P-12 education and the college demands that follow it. Childhood classrooms today look vastly different from the ones even 10 years ago and children, minority or white, come with different need sets. Teachers can learn only so much from textbooks and their own school experiences – they must have the resources to reach students from different backgrounds, and understand how those students will change over the course of the teachers’ careers.

In the case of Arizona, some mandatory Spanish-language education would be a start but the language barrier is only the tip of the iceberg. If students in Arizona classrooms are first-generation Americans, their own parents are not familiar on a firsthand basis with classrooms in America and certainly not the university system.

Even students who are academically ready for college may not be emotionally ready for the pressure and responsibilities of self-learning – both things that need to be taught before high school ends.

I also think that the assimilation mentally of generations-past needs to be forsaken. It seems to me that all of the energy that goes into trying to “change” minority students who enter the classroom would be better spent adjusting teaching methods to ones of inclusion. The global economy demands that students understand that the world is made up of diverse people with a variety of backgrounds, and languages. In order to succeed as a nation, that recognition must take place and those lessons must be included in the process of educating.

The “passing the baton” mentality also needs to be abandoned if students are truly expected to succeed academically after high school ends. If America truly wants to live up to its “Land of Opportunity” moniker, this generation of P-12 students needs to be viewed as a responsibility by their educators long after the high school graduation benchmark has been met. Instead of letting students make their own mistakes in early adulthood, at least when it comes to the future of their careers and livelihoods, educators should stay involved and help bridge the high school-college gap.

What programs do you think might help make this happen?

Read all of our posts about HBCUs by clicking here. 

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

Diverse Conversations: Learning to Lead

Many administrators in higher education rise from the faculty. However, when a faculty member is promoted to an administrative position, becoming a director, department chair, or deans, perhaps, it can be quite a challenge to master the art of leading.

To get some insight into how new administrators can learn to effectively manage and lead, I recently sat down with Dean Amy Hillman of the W. P. Carey School of Business at Arizona State University to talk about promoting for within and some of the strategies that work best in an educational setting.

Q: First, tell me some of the key reasons for and benefits of promoting from within, selecting administrators from established faculty members?

A: Making this choice is similar to a private business choosing whether to bring in an outside manager or CEO, or to promote an insider. There are advantages to both. When significant trajectory change is needed, often an outsider is best because he or she can see the organization anew and shake things up. However, if a radical course change is not needed, then there are a lot of reasons to look inside. First, insiders know the organization. This advantage cannot be overemphasized. Insiders know the culture, generally the way things work, and have insights into the faculty, staff and students. Second, promoting from within in any organization provides career advancement for key faculty who want to grow into administration. Retention of top faculty talent as administrators is more effective and less costly than losing top faculty to take administrative jobs at other universities. Finally, while insiders know the organization, the organization also knows them. They have a personal network and have already established some social capital that will help them succeed in their new post.

Q: What is the most important benefit, in your experience, when it comes to promoting a faculty member to an administrative position?

A: Continuity of the elements of the organization that are its strengths, without sacrificing the benefits of change.

Q: When you promote a faculty member to an administrative position, you essentially start up a transitional phase for them and for the university or department they are going to lead. In your experience, what are some of the most important features of this transitional phase?

A: Setting clear direction is important for any department or unit, but it can’t be done without the new leader getting into the new role and having some time to assess the best path forward. Early in the transition, it’s important to listen to all the stakeholders while learning the full scope of the new responsibilities. After people feel heard, they are much more inclined to follow direction from new leaders.

Q: What, would you say, is the biggest challenge for new administrators going through this transitional phase?

A: When you’ve worked somewhere as a faculty member for a long time, it’s pretty easy to think you know a lot about the school, but an administrative job opens your eyes to all sorts of things you didn’t know about. The toughest challenge is learning the new responsibilities, while reframing your view of the organization.

Q: The W. P. Carey School of Business has promoted from within on a number of occasions and done so quite successfully. What are some of the strategies you have found to be most effective for managing this important transitional process?

A: Having multiple mentors is great. For example, new department chairs have peer chairs in other disciplines, who are more seasoned. Also, staff within their units have rich history that is invaluable. Supervisors and peers at other universities can also be a great source of advice.

Q: What steps does the W. P. Carey School of Business take to support administrators when they are transitioning from a faculty position to a leadership position?

A: We reduce expectations and workload in teaching and research to allow focus on the administrative position. We have more frequent meetings with the new administrator’s supervisors and team members early in the transition, and we always talk about how to improve, whether they’ve been in the job for days, months or years. Finally, discussing the transition back to faculty is also important.

Q: Which supports has the W. P. Carey School of Business found to be most effective?

A: Mentoring.

Q: Lastly, what are your top recommendations for a faculty member who is shifting into an administrative position? What can they do to make the transition successful from the start?

A: Recognize that you may be an expert in your field, but you may not know much about the administrative role in the organization and may need management coaching. Being open to feedback, asking questions and, in general, humility are a great start.

And that concludes my interview with Dean Amy Hillman of the W. P. Carey School of Business at Arizona State University. Thank you for these great insights and for all that you do to support our leaders in higher education.

 

  • no reactions
0
Share