Uncategorized

Recognizing the trends of higher education is important for those of us who are involved in it on a professional level. But what are the trends? What’s next for higher education?

Today, I’m speaking with Ryan Evely Gildersleeve who is Associate Professor of Higher Education at Morgridge College of Education at University of Denver.

Q: First off, let’s talk about some of the general trends. How would you describe the trends of higher education now?

A: Money, money, money. Colleges and universities are now commodities and trades. As such, questions need to change and any or all trends must be understood not only in how they might fit within and reinforce this conception of higher education but also how they challenge it. It’s a strange relationship, certainly. To marketize knowledge and commodify education are in many ways at odds with how we’ve understood the role of the university over time, but it’s here. And with it, new forms of accountability, new demands on performance, and new measures of quality. These three trends form a trifecta of imperatives in public and political interest in higher education today. But it also presents new opportunities – and refocuses attentions on some opportunities that have always been there, but were perhaps neglected. In refashioning institutions, we have the chance to determine new purposes and modes of operations. These are values decisions. Our colleges and universities reflect and produce our values as a society. With big data, rapid technology shifts, and globalized capitalism, it’s radical change now. It’s subjecting the university to the market, wholesale – not piecemeal.

It would be a mistake, however, to equate higher education with business. Colleges and universities are not businesses. They are social institutions that perform a social good, as well as bestow private goods onto individuals. The marketization and commodification trend seeks to make money for various people through these social and private goods. But the thing that makes a college or university the powerful and inspiring institution that it is – that’s knowledge. And while capitalist society can find a way to capitalize pretty much anything, that doesn’t necessarily mean the generative activities of knowledge production and dissemination need to be organized as a business. To do so would more than likely truncate knowledge – it would minimize its impact and standardize its form. Part of what makes knowledge such an attractive commodity is its expansiveness, its diversity, its plurality and all the possibilities that follow suit. Rather, the activities of knowledge production and dissemination probably need something less linear, more dynamic, and dare I say, more democratic than business.

Q: Of these trends, which, do you think, is the most important? The one that people should principally pay attention to?

A: Accountability captures most of the sub-trends through which everyday people in academe have the most opportunity to shape their futures – and the future of higher education. Accountability as an imperative is already here, but what it looks like and how it gets operationalized is still up for grabs. Various states have some tentative plans that are starting to make in-roads, although these accountability regimes tend to be short-term and tied to specific temporal goals of enrollment or attainment. For example, Colorado’s master plan sets forward a college completion goal of having 66% of Coloradans with a degree or certificate by 2025. This is in-line with some of the federal government’s ideas around accountability, such as President Obama’s 2020 goal for being the most credentialed country in the world.

Still, no one is really sure what performance measures are best or most appropriate for higher education. That probably has something to do with the moment of higher education’s history we are crafting right now. It took a long time, but then all of a sudden it was made dramatically clear – higher education is the number one way to populate the workforce with knowledge-focused jobs and fuel the economy with consumers. It’s easy to abscond or at least obscure the knowledge imperative of higher education when we think about it only in relation to the knowledge economy. Today, most universities operationalize the knowledge imperative into research, teaching, and service – three distinct yet overlapping modes of scholarship. The knowledge imperative requires resources too easily hidden from the strict production of degrees. And yet, degrees are the most obvious commodity that colleges and universities can sell.

It’s tricky, because degrees are different than most commodities. They are symbolic of student and faculty labor that hopefully generated a broad (in the case of the liberal arts) or specific (in the case of professional programs) expertise. That labor constitutes knowledge. And knowledge isn’t fixed. It’s malleable. But the market seeks to make it static and standardized. Moreover, knowledge has as much to do with process as it does with content – knowledge involves synthesis, analysis, and creativity, regardless of the field of study.

Put plainly, a degree is not like a baseball bat. Sports stores can sell a baseball bat to anyone. A college degree must be earned through the generative activity of a higher education. Whereas, sports stores would never say you must obtain a 300 batting average before they’d sell you a baseball bat, colleges require students to perform above average over a period of about four years before they will bestow a degree.

Beyond this simple accounting of how a college degree is a tough thing to commodify and measure/assess productively (i.e., without absconding the knowledge imperative), it’s important to recognize our systems of higher education in the U.S. are so diverse that a single nationalized version of accountability won’t make much sense. It would be like having one regulating body for the minor leagues of baseball, the apprentice programs in dance, and keeping track of the number of moons orbiting Jupiter. How does one group take responsibility for holding each activity accountable? It can’t. But a small collection of dynamic accountability efforts might provide a whole new venue for talking about and documenting the significance of our systems of higher education in society. It might look more like various portfolios of assessment rather than a scorecard or ranking system.

Any accountability systems we might adopt should incorporate group, organizational, and social metrics, in addition to more traditional individual measurements (e.g., graduation rates). The problem with individual measurements alone is that a college education, being based on knowledge, is not solely an individual endeavor. Knowledge, requires learning, which requires collaboration. Doing so could potentially help revive focus on the knowledge imperative of higher education – moving beyond the linear interpretation of what colleges and universities “produce.”

Cue the faculty and administration.

Q: Why is it important for higher education professionals to pay attention to these trends? What benefits do we derive from being attentive?

A: If faculty and administrators don’t take seats at the table where these decisions are being made and the problems are being figured out, then we really are claiming space as cogs in a machine – and that’s not what most faculty came to the profession desiring. Most of us, I believe, want to take the knowledge imperative of our profession seriously. To do so, we need to configure systems of accountability that help illustrate the importance of our work.

Q: How can we use these trends, then? What strategies do you recommend for not only staying up to date with trends but making sure that they work for you, that you are prepared for them?

A: Faculty can demand seats at the accountability table (as should the public!). This can be difficult, because the commodification of education means we should all be spending most of our time on revenue generating activities – enrollments, external funding for research, etc. But I think engaging in active governance is something we can’t resign to managers and external voices alone. And right now – in this historical moment for higher education – shared governance still has some political cache. Faculty can still bring an institution to a stand still, without fear of losing their livelihoods. Shared governance also means staying up to date on what’s happening within and across our fields – fields of study, fields of education, fields of public investment. We need to think deeply about the ways that our labor – the labor of the knowledge imperative – is unique compared to other labor.

Q: Finally, what do you think is likely to happen in higher education in the future? Do you think the current trends are likely to sustain themselves?

A: I see no end to the commodification of education or the marketization of knowledge. Too many and too powerful economies now rely on it. The relationship between higher education and the economy has changed fundamentally, and with that change comes new questions that the public are expecting higher education to be able to answer. Accountability regimes are expanding in scope and scale. Now is the time to seize the opportunity to use these trends in order to configure the kind of social institution we want our colleges and universities to constitute.

Academics and higher education professionals don’t need to agree with the new economic imperatives of higher education or with the maturation of accountability regimes. But we certainly need to accept the responsibility of sustaining the knowledge imperative that undergirds our generative activity. And we need to recognize the weight of that responsibility as we choose how to engage with the design, adoption, execution, and critique of the accountability systems that will help define what the institution stands for and what it can produce as values of a democratic society.

We would like to thank Ryan for taking the time to sit down and talk with us.

Recognizing the trends of higher education is important for those of us who are involved in it on a professional level. But what are the trends? Today, I’m speaking with Yvonne Tocquigny who is CEO of Tocquigny, a company that specializes in brand management and development for colleges and universities.

Q: To provide some context, what are the principle reasons for the rising cost of attendance for higher education and are costs going to continue to rise in the event that no one in higher education takes steps to curb them?

A: Costs are being driven by the fact that higher education is increasingly competitive. Schools are competing for the best teachers, so the cost of acquiring top talent continues to rise. Schools are also competing for the best students. Students no longer look primarily at the educational benefits of a school in their assessment. They consider the experience the school provides them as students. If you compare the experience of attending the University of Texas at Austin, for example, in the 1980s to the experience today, you would see a drastic difference. Today, the University has all the amenities a student could ask for. The ability to offer students the lifestyle experience they want is extremely expensive. At some point, it will become too expensive to offer increasingly luxurious amenities and excellent teachers at a cost that a middle class American can afford.

Q: Based on your experiences in higher education, do you think the value of education is still allowing a viable return on investment and if so (or if not) why?

A: In my experience the cost of an education usually provides a viable return on investment, particularly if that investment can be made up front and without going into major debt by acquiring student loans. Of course, some degrees provide a higher ROI than others, and students who care about this return may choose a career path that leads to a job that will provide a higher salary. It is becoming more of a luxury to follow one’s heart and pursue learning for the sake of learning. This gets to the critical point of disagreement among educators, some of whom believe that an education is valuable for its own sake in bettering the individual and culture as a whole, vs. those who believe education should prepare the individual for a specific career or trade.

Q: What, if anything, is being done or being considered to start curbing the cost of college attendance and what can students and parents do to help ensure the return on investment for college attendance?

A: The first thing that students and parents can do is to be prepared for college. A high percentage of freshmen who are admitted each year don’t have the skills to succeed in college. This creates a need for remediation, which is another expense for parents and for the schools. Low student persistence is aggravated by the fact that students are not prepared to succeed. Many schools are struggling to put student remediation programs in place to address the persistence problem. This is a growing issue for many schools, students and parents.

Q: What strategies do you think might develop in the future? How do you think the cost of attendance may, in fact, be curbed?

A: Online learning and MOOCS will provide innovative ways for schools to cut costs by curbing the cost of labor (the #1 cost for most schools) and amortizing their investment in the best teachers. This will have to be balanced with the need to continue to convince students that the value of an online course from their school is somehow superior to that of a less expensive institution. Many people believe that in a few years, one will be able to acquire online learning through Amazon. So schools will have to do more over time to define the value of a degree from their particular school. They will have to become more efficient at attracting the right students to their school. The students who will succeed and graduate with a degree are the best prospects. It will be better business for a school to focus on attracting the right students as opposed to as many students as possible.

We would like to thank Yvonne for sitting down with us.

Many higher education professionals often complain that the higher ups at their institutions are not transparent in their dealings. This can have a negative impact on faculty morale and thus a devastating effect on the functioning of an institution. To talk about how institutions can actually ensure transparency and counteract the problem of lacking transparency, I recently sat down with Laurie M. Joyner, president of Wittenberg University in Springfield, Ohio.

Transparency is, of course, a vital component of just about any professional enterprise, but it is particularly important in higher education for maintaining positive relationships within the organization structure – between higher education and those that I am referring to here as “the higher ups”, which include administrators and so forth. Why do you think transparency is so important in this context?

Transparency in communication and action builds trust, which is essential to effective shared governance. The strategic challenges facing higher education today, including remaining mission-driven within the context of a sustainable financial model, touch upon deeply held beliefs about institutional direction. Our academic values and tradition recognize that such critical decisions are best informed by the perspectives of faculty, staff, students, alumni and board members. A lack of transparency with any constituent group compromises our ability to form effective partnerships necessary for creating a shared vision required to move our institutional agenda forward.

Q: In your experience, what are some of the most common problems when transparency is not maintained? What does that look like in terms of organizational function and relationships between higher education professionals and the administrators, the leaders?

A: The most common problem is that a perception of mistrust is likely to develop making it more difficult to align priorities and efforts designed to strengthen the institution. When priorities are not aligned between faculty, administrators, and the governing board, organizational functioning may be negatively impacted. This often appears as tensions surrounding the rights and responsibilities of various groups for certain types of decisions. The challenge, of course, is that more attention and energy can become focused on who has prime responsibility for what decisions versus figuring out how to collaborate in a collegial manner to address the most pressing issues facing the institution. In some cases, relationships become strained, decision making can stall, and ultimately, organizational effectiveness is compromised.

It’s also important to note that while transparency is a healthy aspect of organizational culture, it is not necessarily sufficient for effective governance. Effective governance requires ongoing education regarding the strategic issues impacting the organization (e.g., shifting demographics, improving educational outcomes, exploiting competitive strengths, etc.) Insisting on transparency regarding key institutional metrics can build support for difficult decisions, facilitate continuous improvement, and meet the growing demand for quantitative outcome data.

Q: Drawing from these first two questions, what would you say are the most important areas for maintaining transparency; where is it particularly important in higher education institutions?

A: A commitment to transparency should be pervasive for the benefit of all internal and external stakeholders. This transparency can be exceedingly helpful in facilitating data-driven decisions, supporting continuous improvement, and fostering a culture of accountability regarding institutional performance at all levels. From a faculty perspective, transparency is of special importance in the following areas: institutional planning and budgeting; curricular requirements; academic integrity; academic freedom; and the selection, evaluation and promotion of faculty colleagues.

In my experience, there are two areas that present special challenges to administrative leaders who value transparency. These areas relate to personnel and legal issues where one is not at liberty to discuss the circumstances surrounding particular decisions. It is frustrating to face community resistance that is not based on complete information and not be in a position to respond.

Q: What are the key benefits for maintaining transparency in higher education, from an administrative and leadership standpoint?

A: The main benefit is that it builds a culture of open communication and trust, both of which are necessary to create a sense of partnership for effectively accomplishing the important work of the institution. Given the challenges facing higher education today, it is critical to do everything possible to align our collective efforts around shared priorities as we work toward achieving our common purpose.

An additional benefit of transparency is that it also supports the development of increasingly refined performance metrics that are useful in supporting a culture of continuous improvement across the organization while also responding to calls for greater accountability for student and institutional outcomes.

Q: How, then, do you go about establishing and ultimately maintaining transparency in higher education institutions?

A: I think this is best accomplished by respecting the systems of shared governance involving the Board, the President and senior administrators, and the faculty. In many cases, this is easier said than done because different constituent groups have varying levels of understanding as it relates to effective governance practices (e.g., who has more or less responsibility and authority for making certain types of decisions). Given this, I believe ongoing professional development is required at every level of the organization to ensure that all key constituent groups are being supported as they adopt best practices to enhance shared governance.

A deep commitment to transparency also supports continuous improvement across the organization and contributes to a culture of assessment and accountability. Once these elements are structured into organizational policies and practices, they strengthen and reinforce one another, ultimately improving shared governance and educational quality.

Q: At Wittenberg University, transparency is something that you emphasize at these various levels. Beyond these basic methods and strategies for establishing and maintaining transparency, what strategies have you found to be most effective for maintaining transparency?

A: We have worked hard to try to educate our campus on some of the core challenges facing Wittenberg. This is a critical point. There must be general agreement on the challenges if there is any chance of aligning the efforts of the campus community and Board. We have also worked very hard to communicate early and often using a range of strategies. For example, I host community dialogue sessions to discuss areas of concern and to respond to any community questions. I also distribute Board agendas to the faculty, report the actions taken at each Board meeting to all faculty and staff, and distribute an electronic newsletter to faculty, staff, and retirees every two weeks. I also provide similar monthly updates to Board and Emeriti Board members. In addition, we are working to develop more refined outcome metrics to assess progress toward key institutional goals. The intent is to eventually have all these metrics readily available to anyone interested in tracking institutional performance over time.

Q: In your experience, when there are transparency issues and they are proving problematic, how have you proceeded to address the issues and restore transparency?

A: In my experience, proceeding in an honest, open and authentic way is always the preferred approach with all constituencies. Further, ensuring that all elements of the governance system are working as effectively as possible and then routinely consulting with appropriate groups is essential. If there are not effective structures or systems in place, then creating meaningful structures to bring various groups together to focus on important issues can help foster understanding, enhance transparency, increase collaboration, and improve results.

Q: Inevitably there are some instances in which administrators inherit transparency issues and that’s what I’d like to focus on in this question. What advice would you give to a higher education administrator who is facing problems with transparency? What advice would you give in terms of establishing transparency and, if you like, dealing with the fallout of the initial transparency issue?

A: Communicating about the issues in a forthright manner and establishing structures to help address difficult questions are important. I also think recognizing that shared governance is challenging and requires ongoing attention is critical. At Wittenberg, we have initiated an effort to strengthen Board governance with support from the Association of Governing Boards (AGB). From my perspective, there are few issues more strategic than ensuring that our governing Board understands its rights and responsibilities as it relates to our institution.

My hope is to initiate a similar process internally to enhance the working relationships between our faculty committees, senior administrators, and Board. Through these parallel efforts to strengthen governance, I believe Wittenberg will be better served because our systems will become more closely aligned as we work toward shared priorities within the context of clearer expectations regarding our respective responsibilities. Ultimately, I believe this work will result in greater satisfaction for our faculty leaders, administrators, and Board members and will also foster improved institutional outcomes.

Thank you for your time, President Joyner. This concludes our interview.

In this series, appropriately titled “Black Boys in Crisis,” I highlight the problems facing black boys in education today, as well as provide clear steps that will lead us out of the crisis.

Though people outside the “Black boy” demographic like to think that American K-12 schools, workplaces and courthouses are pillars of fairness, those within the grouping know better. Study after study, research report after research report, and statistic after statistic all point to a crisis among the young, Black boys of the nation – beginning in homes, stretching to K-12 educational experiences, and leading straight to the cycle of incarceration in increasingly high numbers.

So what can be done to save this group of children that consistently seem to fall through the cracks of a society that does little to rescue them? In this series, I will look at four specific areas of especially troubling data, in hopes of sparking some conversation on how as a society we can rethink them to produce a stronger generation of Black young men in our midst.

Dismal Reading Numbers

This spring, the Black Star Project published findings that just 10 percent of eighth-grade Black boys in the U.S. are considered “proficient” in reading. In urban areas like Chicago and Detroit, that number was even lower. By contrast, the 2013 National Assessment of Education Progress found that 46 percent of white students are adequate readers by eighth grade, and 17 percent of Black students as a whole are too. The achievement gap between the two races is startling, but the difference between the NAEP report on Black students as a whole and the Black Star findings of just Black boys is troubling too. It is not simply Black children in general who appear to be failing in the basics – like literacy; it is the boys.

Reading is only one piece of the school puzzle, of course, but it is a foundational one. If the eighth graders in our schools cannot read, how will they ever learn other subjects and make it to a college education (or, in reality, to a high school diploma)? Reading scores tell us so much more than the confines of their statistics and I believe these numbers are key to understanding the plight of young Black men in our society as a whole.

A Group Behind

While it is true that Black boys often arrive in Kindergarten classrooms with inherent disadvantages, they continue to experience a “behind the 8-ball” mentality as their school careers progress. Black boys are more likely than any other group to be placed in special education classes, with 80 percent of all special education students being Black or Hispanic males. Learning disabilities aside, black students (and particularly boys) experience disconnection when it comes to the authority figures in their classrooms. The K-12 teaching profession is dominated by white women, many who are very qualified and very interested in helping all their students succeed but lack the first-hand experience needed to connect with their Black male students.

Schools with majority Black students also tend to have lower amounts of teachers who are certified in their degree areas. A U.S. Department of Education report found that in schools with at least 50 percent Black students, only 48 percent were certified in the subject, compared with 65 percent in majority white schools. In English, the numbers were 59 and 68 percent, respectively and in science, they were 57 percent and 73 percent.

The disadvantages that Black boys bring to their schools aren’t corrected in K-12 classrooms, they are furthered. As they get older, they are continually marginalized in their schools and societies – given less-than-adequate access to the resources that their already advantaged peers receive. While the connection between items like reading scores and civic responsibility may not seem well defined on the surface, they are related and that relationship is integral to turning the tide for Black boys in America.

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

It’s no secret that Black boys are considered the trouble makers of society. In America’s prison systems, black citizens are incarcerated at six times the rates of white ones – and the NAACP predicts that one in three of this generation of Black boys will spend some time locked up. Do these numbers tell the true story though? Are Black boys inherently more dangerous than their white and Hispanic peers – or are they the products of racial profiling and a society that sets them up to fail?

In the first part of this series I looked at the connection between low reading ability and a lifetime of struggle for Black young men in the U.S., but today I want to focus on a non-academic area that impacts this group in childhood: punishment that begins in K-12 classrooms.

Troubling Stats in Schools

Nearly 75 percent of all schools in the U.S. report at least one violent incident in their schools each year, but that number rises to 82 percent for schools with a majority of Black students. Though Hispanic boys are the most likely to be involved with gang activity at school, it is certainly an issue for Black boys too – with 31 percent of students nationwide reporting seeing Black gang activity in their schools. Violence is just one part of the criminal side of K-12 hallways, though. There are also higher numbers of non-violent crimes, like theft, in schools where more students are Black than any other race.

All of that being said, there still IS violence in schools where Black students are the minority, and committed by non-Black students. Yet, over and over again statistics show that punishment for Black boys – even first-time offenders – in schools is harsher than any other demographic. Consider these facts:

• Black students make up just 18 percent of children in U.S. preschools, but make up half of those youngsters who are suspended.
• Black boys receive two-thirds of all school suspensions nationwide – all demographics and both genders considered.
• In Chicago, 75 percent of all students arrested in public schools are Black.

Also troubling is the fact that not all of the Black boys taken from their schools in handcuffs are violent, or even criminals. Increasingly, school-assigned law enforcement officers are leading these students from their schools hallways for minor offenses, including class disruption, tardiness and even non-violent arguments with other students. It seems that it is easier to remove these students from class through the stigma of suspension or arrest than to look for in-school solutions.
Minnesota civil rights attorney Nekima Levy-Pounds writes that “it is a continual affront to the human dignity of black boys to be treated as second class citizens within the public school system and made to feel as though they are not welcome in mainstream classroom settings.”

In Minneapolis, for example, an Office for Black Male Student Achievement has been created within the public schools to address the specific challenges that face young black males face when navigating the public school system. It appears that the effort may just be smoke and mirrors, however, as only $200,000 has been dedicated to it – which amounts to just $28 per African American boy.

School-to-Prison pipeline

School suspension, and certainly arrest, is just the beginning of a life considered on the wrong side of the law for many Black boys. By 18 years of age, 30 percent of Black males have been arrested at least once, compared to just 22 percent of white males. Those numbers rise to 49 percent for Black men by the age of 23, and 38 percent of white males. Researchers from several universities concluded earlier this year that arrests early in life often set the course for more crimes and incarceration throughout the rest of the offender’s lifetime.

Turning our backs on the misbehavior of our K-12 youth doesn’t teach them a lesson, or lead to lives that are changed for the better. It only simplifies the present, paving the way for a future of crime and other misbehavior. In order to change the troubling trends of Black men and crime, we first need to address the way Black boys are disciplined in K-12 schools and look for better solutions to suspensions and arrests.

photo credit: Elliott Fusy-Pudal via photopin cc

When public schools first started popping up in the U.S., they were considered secondary to other hands-on pursuits. Learning to read, write and perform basic arithmetic in classrooms was not equal to or greater than the actual work of building the nation and keeping up family farms.

Even when a basic public school education became a relative priority, the school calendar revolved around agriculture – a necessity of the American way of life. Three months off in the summer months was not mandated because students needed “down time” or free creative play or time to decompress from the pressures of their studies. Those months off were full of even more work, and little free time, and plenty of hard work for the sake of the family and the nation.

Though family farms as a whole have become an antiquated piece of American history, the idea of summers off from school is still alive and well. The American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research finds that the average American student receives 13 weeks off of school each calendar year – with 10 or 11 of those coming consecutively during June, July and August (approximately) – while barely any other countries have more than seven weeks off in a school calendar. Around 10 percent of U.S. schools have transitioned to a year-round school calendar with shorter breaks inserted throughout the year but the majority of schools in the U.S. still follow a summers-off schedule.

But why? There is no perilous economic reason that keeping children in school during the summer would be detrimental, and there is no medical reason that three consecutive months during the center of the calendar year are necessary for the healthy development of children. The reason the school year remains in a summers-off state is simple: it is easier than changing it. That mentality begins with teachers in the classroom and escalates to educational policymakers. Changing the ways things have always been, even if there is some pretty solid evidence that it would improve things, is too cumbersome – so why bother?

Why Teachers Don’t Want Year-Round Schooling

One of the first issues educators raise when the idea of year-round schooling arises is getting rid of summers off. Theoretically if nothing about the school calendar changed except the timing of the days off, teachers and administrators would still have the same amount of time off but it would be spread out over 12 months more evenly. Most educators will admit that they enjoy having at least three consecutive months each year to themselves, without the demands of being around children for seven hours every day and spending their evenings deep in grading or lesson planning. Many teachers take advantage of the time off to seek out other avenues of employment, to supplement their annual incomes. It’s doubtful that these teachers would be able to find the same level of employment during one or two week breaks scattered throughout the year, and it’s hard to say if those shorter spurts would allow enough time to for the mental decompression teachers need to perform their important jobs to the best of their abilities.

I believe that the benefit to teachers of year-round schooling would far outweigh these inconveniences, though. The pressure to have high-performing students is the bane of every teacher’s existence and research shows that too much time off from the school routine can actually undo the hard work teachers put in to their students. In fact, many teachers report that the first two to three months of each school year are spent teaching remedial skills from the previous grade – wasting even more of the time that should go into original learning.

What do you say teachers? Are your misgivings about year-round school based on personal reasons, or out of concern for your students?

photo credit: Old Shoe Woman via photopin cc

In my last post, I talked about the reasons I feel that teachers should get behind the push to support year-round schooling and how more consistent time in the classroom will lead to higher student performance, boosting teacher accountability ratings and accommodating a much more streamlined education process. Today I want to look at the common reasons that people are against switching from a summers-off school calendar to a year-round schooling model.

Rising costs

The summer months are typically the highest ones for energy consumption. In fact, the average electricity bill for homeowners in the summer months goes up 4 to 8 percent. The same concept would be true of schools. Having empty classrooms in the summer months means less money going out to air conditioning and prevents other warm-weather costs from hitting school utility budgets. It may seem like a minor point, but an increase in utility bills for one-quarter of the year really could hurt schools’ bottom lines.

Not enough “down time”

Some childhood development experts believe that particularly when it comes to younger students, time off in the summer months is a vital component of healthy development. The argument follows that kids are not designed to spend so much of their time inside classroom walls and that the warmer, pleasant weather of the summer provides a perfect opportunity to get outside and experience childhood. The problem with this argument, of course, is that most children are not spending their summers frolicking in fields of flowers or running around their neighborhoods, hanging out with other kids.

The days of kids spending their summers outside, communing with nature and getting plenty of exercise, are long past. A recent Harvard University study found that school-age children tend to gain weight at a faster pace during the summer months than during the school year, a fact attributed to more time spent in sedentary activities like watching television or using mobile devices instead of being outside or participating in active pursuits. Not only must K-12 students relearn the academic items, but they must also shift their mentalities from less-active, sedentary ones to sharp, alert learning models – and teachers face the brunt of this responsibility.

The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry reports that by the time children graduate from high school, they will have spent more time watching television than in classrooms. What’s more – children who watch an excessive amount of television generally have lower grades in school, read fewer books and have more health problems. While some children visit summer camps, or attend child care when school is out, others stay at home, inside, with not much else to do than watch TV or play games on electronic devices. This is especially true for kids who are middle-school age or higher and are able to stay home alone when parents work. The “down time” of the summer months is really just empty time, often void of anything academically or developmentally advantageous.

Scheduling adjustments

For parents with children of different ages and in different schools, a year-round schedule could present serious scheduling issues. This argument assumes that schools would actually adhere to different time off schedules – something that seemingly could be adjusted so that all schools within a particular district or geographic area were on the same schedule. There is also the child care debate that says it would be difficult for working parents to find babysitters for one or two weeks at a time every few months, as opposed to three months straight in the summer. Again though, the market adjusts with demand and it seems to me that child care centers and camps would offer programs when students needed them. Just because those programs are not available now does not mean they would not exist when families were willing to pay for them.

The most common arguments against year-round schooling seem like a stretch, at best. They are based on assumptions that are not entirely grounded and reek more of the fear of change than of actual concern.

What arguments against year-round schooling do you hear? What ones do you agree with?

 

In this series, I’ve advocated for K-12 schools to shift from the traditional summers-off school calendar to  year-round schooling. Consistency, less time spent relearning material, and the implications that year-round schooling has for closing the achievement gap are just a few of my reasons for feeling so strongly that this shift take place. There’s another piece to this argument though, and one that deserves a closer look. Along with more evenly splitting up time off, should schools be adding more time to their school days or more total days in the classroom?

Where We Stand

Let’s look at where American schools rank right now when it comes to days in school versus time off. Thirty states require schools to have a 180-day calendar, two ask for more than 181 school days and the rest ask for between 171 and 179 days on the official school calendar each year. Minnesota is the only state in the nation that has no minimum requirement for number of days students are in the classroom (though the state averages 175 school days). This means that in states with the lowest day requirements, students are out of school for more days than they are in it (as many as 194 days per year), a number that contrasts greatly with other developed nations.
Korea has the highest required number of school days, at 225, followed by Japan at 223 and China at 221. Canadian requirements are close to the U.S., at 188 days, and England is at 190 days. When all developed nations are considered, the international average for days in school is 193 – a full two weeks+ higher than most of the U.S.
But are all these days considered equal?

How long are the school days in places like Korea, China and England? It varies, but it is not uncommon for Korean high school students to spend 16 hours each school day in classrooms. That is more than twice the amount of time that American students spend at school, and perhaps a bit too extreme. Korean students consistently rank at the top of developed nations when it comes to subjects like math and science, though, vastly outpacing U.S. student. By contrast, in England school-aged children spend 6.5 to 7 hours at school – the equivalent of American students (but they spend more days in the classroom).

A Call for More Time in Classrooms

When comparing the amount of time dedicated to educational settings in the U.S. and competing economies, it becomes glaringly obvious that our standards of what is acceptable in terms of days in school varies greatly from the rest of the world. Even President Obama has been vocal about the need for American schools to add more time in the classroom – either through longer school days or more days on the school calendar.

“Today, it puts us at a competitive disadvantage. Our children spend over a month less in school than children in South Korea. That is no way to prepare them for a 21st century economy,” said President Obama in 2009.

Predictably those comments have received some pushback in the years since, both from parents who believe their children are already under too much pressure at school and need every single day off they are allotted, and from teachers unions who want to know how educators will be properly accommodated for the extra time spent in classroom instruction. The idea of adding more time to student school calendars is an unpopular one – but I’m not sure that is reason enough to rule it out.
Is it time to turn the U.S. K-12 school calendar completely on its head by abolishing summers-off schedules and adding time in the classroom? Would such actions make a significant positive impact on student performance, particularly in STEM topics?

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

Note: The following guest post comes to us from Jack Schacht, the founder of www.MyCollegePlanningTeam.com, a Wheaton, Illinois based organization that brings together experts from both the academic and financial services communities who work in coordination to help families find the right college for the right price.  Contact him at  [email protected].

As tuition costs continue to skyrocket, families can no longer afford to make any mistakes when it comes to paying for college.

Making mistakes can drive up your Expected Family Contribution (EFC) causing some families to pay thousands more for college than necessary.   If they only knew the many rules that affect EFC, they could save money.

Here are the seven most common mistakes families can make when saving and paying for college:

1) Saving in a student’s name.

Not everyone knows that savings in a parent’s name (that is in excess of their asset protection allowance) is assessed at 5.64% in calculating the EFC.  The asset protection allowance for a typical college family is around $45,000.

Savings in a student’s name, however, are assessed at 20% or 25%, depending on the methodology the school uses to calculate EFC.  Accordingly, if Grandma gives your child $30,000 to put in his own college savings account, you have just added at least $6000 to your Expected Family Contribution.

To make matters worse, the student does not have an asset protection allowance.  So never have assets in the student’s name.

2) Paying for college with a Grandparent-owned 529

Some financial advisors  have actually recommended this as a strategy to reduce college costs. Make sense, right?  If neither the parent or the child are holding the asset, what could possibly be the problem?

While it may be true that there is no assessment on either the parent or student’s assets, there is still an assessment—and it’s much worse. According to FAFSA rules, money paid out of the Grandparent’s 529 is considered untaxed income to the student. And the assessment on student income is a whopping 50%

While students don’t have an asset protection allowance, they do have a small income protection allowance.  Currently, the student’s gross income protection allowance is about $6300. What this means, however, is that every dollar over the income protection allowance is assessed at fifty cents on the dollar.  Accordingly, if Grandma sends $16,300 dollars to the college   for your student’s first year’s tuition, you will be have raised your EFC by an additional $5000.

3) Using or borrowing Retirement Funds

Many parents make the mistake of thinking they are getting a break from the government when they pay for college out of their IRA funds.  After all, the government waives the 10% penalty for funds withdrawn that are used for college.

What parents forget, however, is they are adding to their income when they withdraw funds from an IRA and parent income is typically assessed at 47%.  It’s another very bad move.

4) Missing Important tax deductions & tax credits

Parents sometimes make an error in paying their entire college costs out of their 529s only to find out that they can no longer claim the American Opportunity Tax credit.

Because the parent has already received a tax benefit from the tax-free distribution from their 529, the federal government considers that claiming a $2500 tax credit would be “double-dipping” and that is not allowed.  So work with your tax advisor on this one.  You don’t want to miss $2500 in free money from the government.

5) Being unacquainted with EFC reduction strategies

Before parents figure out how they are going to pay for college, get a good book on the subject.  One of the best books out there dealing with EFC reduction strategies is written by Kalman Chany and called Paying For College Without Going Broke. 

 Knowing the material and implementing the strategies yourself, however, may not be a wise move for everyone.   Families are encouraged to seek the help of a college planning specialist .   Just using your regular CPA can hinder your chances for financial aid.

6. Knowing the different methodologies for calculating EFC

A parent recently followed his accountant’s advice to cash out his $150,000 in stock funds and pay down the mortgage.  He was told it would save a bundle on college.

While it’s true that this move could save him about $7500 a year in college costs, that’s not how it worked out.

Under the Federal Methodology, which most all public universities and a majority of private colleges use, this move could have achieved that result.  That’s because under FAFSA rules, the equity in one’s home is not used to determine EFC.

This was not true, however, with all three schools their daughter was interested in attending.  These particular schools used what is called the Institutional Methodology to determine EFC.  Under that method, home equity IS assessed.

Note only did this move do little to bring down EFC, but the stocks the man cashed out would have increased in value by about 25% if he  held on to them during that two year period!

7.  Not Understanding How to Use the Appeals Process

Again, many people do not understand that there is still money that can be saved even after their receive their final award letters.  Awards can be appealed.  Obvious examples would be when there has been a change in family income or if the family was suddenly incurring some unexpected medical expenses.

What really is news to parents, however, is that an appeal can also be made because another college, which is not your student’s first choice, made your student a better offer.  You do not want to try playing one school against the other, however, unless the other college has a similar ranking to the college to whom you are appealing.

Most important, read up on how to write a good appeals letter before you act.  You can also seek out of a college coach in your area who does this kind of work.

There is a lot to navigate out there when planning for college.  Next to your home, however, college is likely to be your second largest investment in your lifetime.  Take the time to do it right!

 

 

 

Note: The following guest post comes to us courtesy of Jacob Bell, a junior at the University of Maryland pursuing a dual degree in journalism and general biology. He currently works as the staff writer and web content manager for Student Voice and is a general assignment reporter for the University of Maryland’s student newspaper, The Diamondback. Jacob is also the features chair of “Stories Beneath the Shell,” which is an online multimedia publication. You can learn more about Jacob by connecting with him through LinkedIn or following him on Twitter, @realjacobbell.

In late May and early June, instructors at Seattle University casted ballots on whether they wanted to unionize. Since then, not a single ballot has been counted. Instead, administrative efforts have impounded the vote and put the faculty’s unionization status in limbo.

Seattle University employs nearly 350 adjunct faculty members. Adjuncts, along with graduate student and full-time, non-tenured instructors, are referred to as contingent faculty, and make up more than 75 percent of instructors at U.S. higher education institutions, according to a 2014 report by the House Committee on Education and the Workforce Democrats

The same report states that adjuncts earn an estimated annual median salary of $22,041, meaning many of them “often live on the edge of poverty,” and make less than half the amount of full-time faculty members.

“[On] most campuses … the majority of the teaching is now done by adjunct and contingent faculty, rather than tenured-track or tenured faculty,” adjunct communications instructor Dr. Louisa Edgerly said.

Contingent faculty also lack many of the benefits offered to tenured instructors, such as job security, career growth and smaller, less varied course loads.

When Seattle University faculty attempted to address these issues with university administrators, the response was less than proactive, according to Edgerly.

The faculty then turned to unionization as a way for contingent instructors to get the same benefits and securities as tenured instructors, and filed a petition for an official vote among campus instructors on the matter to the National Labor Relations Board, a governing body for all things related to unions.

Though the NLRB approved the faculty’s initiative, university administrators appealed the decision. The administrators reasoned that the university did not fall under the state’s, and by extension the board’s, jurisdiction because of its religious affiliation. Due to the appeal, the ballots from the vote will remain impounded until a final decision is made.

“As a student, my big concern about this is that it really makes sense to support the faculty because a union would create far more longevity for faculty on this campus,” junior public affairs major Izzy Gardon said. “Odds are good that probably none of the [adjuncts] will be at this institution come the decision for this case. It’s probably gonna be 4 to 5 years away, millions of dollars in lawyer fees, and many of them won’t be here to see that.”

Gardon is the social media director for the university’s Student Coalition for Faculty Rights, an organization devoted to students supporting their faculty. In the last year, the coalition held a rally, took photos, wrote newspaper editorials and hosted “project engage,” an event where students wrote letters to the university’s president, in an effort to educate students about the pertinent issues their instructors are facing.

Gardon is also the external chief of staff for the Student Government of Seattle University, which has lent its support to the faculty and requested the withdrawal of the administration’s appeal of the NLRB decision.

“We hold forums, we publish polls, and so if you ask your average student here, we really do reflect the climate here on campus and really try to act as a barometer of student voice,” Gardon said.

According to a recent SGSU poll, 74 percent of university students support their faculty having the choice to unionize.

While their opinions may differ from those of students and faculty, Gardon added that administrators have been flexible and supportive of the coalition’s initiatives.

Seattle University has taken steps in recent years to try to improve faculty wages and benefits, including securing $5.6 million that will go towards keeping faculty and staff salaries competitive, increasing the minimum full-time annual salary from $24,600 to $42,000, and offering modified full-time faculty appointments to part-time instructors teaching more than four classes per year.

Many people at the university are looking to these measures as a starting point for more benefits and increased negotiations between faculty and administrators. Moreover, countless students are using issues like faculty unionization as a platform to improve dialogue between them and the administration and solve many of the ingrained problems in higher education.