Reality CheckED

Vicious Cycle

This morning Inside Higher Ed featured an editorial addressing the cost of college in an upfront manner. Kevin Carey sees the relationship between the rising cost of college and private student loans to be co-dependent. The article relates how he encountered a cheerful group of college loan lenders trying to attract students with Frisbees and pens. They were peddling debt and, as he outlines it, the way they do it helps to exacerbate the rising costs of college. He brings up some good points, the availability of student loans combined with their proven profitability shoulders students with a college debt that can hound them for the rest of their lives. Because college loans are presented in a cheerful way they leave no incentives for schools to keep cost down. As Carey writes “The rapid expansion of student debt, combined with the soft-pedaling of debt’s true meaning has served to forestall higher education’s inevitable day of reckoning when it comes to price.”In short, as long as students can get the loans, colleges can charge what they want without having to pay attention to the bottom line.

In conversations that Public Agenda has had with college presidents, most say they are working to  keep the bottom line down, but costs continue to rise and Americans are beginning to doubt colleges have the public's best interest in mind. As reported in Squeeze Play: How Parents and the Public Look at Higher Education Today, half of Americans (52 percent) believe that colleges are like businesses and mainly care about the bottom line, as opposed to education. And going along with Carey’s concerns, 78 percent of Americans believe that students have to borrow too much to go to college – with 60 percent saying they believe this “strongly.” Meanwhile, 62 percent of Americans believe that many highly qualified, motivated students don’t have an opportunity for higher education.

With a nation concerned about debt and opportunity -- and especially in tough economic times --  it seems like both institutions, the student loan industry and higher education need to do more to gain the public’s trust,  both in the short term and in the long term. These industries also need to recognize, as Carey mentions, that education is not a private good. The benefits of an educated individual extend beyond just that person and into the public sphere. The more educated a person is, the better for everyone. But by making education financially unattainable, especially without the aid of nearly insurmountable debt, our collective future is threatened.

Paul Gasbarra

Is Greener Better?

Representatives in the House decided last Wednesday to spend over $20 billion dollars making schools greener. The measure would provide schools with the funds to improve our nation’s learning centers by adding improvements such as solar panels, skylights, gardens on school grounds and rooftops, and a variety of other measures. Check out the PowerPoint slide show from the US Green Building Council to learn more about the plan.

                 While only the most evil of Captain Planet’s foes would be against making schools healthier, less wasteful, more energy efficient places, the Republicans and the White House are against the plan because they feel that it will interfere with the jurisdiction of states to handle their own building improvements.

But let’s consider  what the improvements would mean, beyond the whole healthier kids, better lighting, more verdant campus thing. Well, you’ll have a group of contractors lining up to fetch those green dollars. Which, if you trust contractors, isn’t such a bad thing. A few of them may even have kids at the schools they’re improving, so that could work for the schools, not just the local economy.

Then there is the need for educational improvement. Some may believe that billions of dollars would be better used by bolstering teacher salaries or updating educational resources? Natural lighting is great and all, but what’s the point if you’re reading a science text book from 1963? On the other hand, if properly implemented, this green effort could serve to improve science education by making the lessons more relevant to students. Some of the improvements I’ve mentioned offer teachable moments on energy, electricity, botany, climate and health. Parents and students have also expressed interest in more math and science. Public Agenda has produced reports which detail how student and parents show a significant amount of support for improving math and science classes. More than half of high school students say that “greatly increasing the number and quality of math and science courses student take in high school” would improve high school education. And nearly a third of parents are in favor of more math and science. Practically no one says there should be less.

But $20 billion dollars is a great deal of money, and with a federal debt approaching $9.5 trillion, should we be going further in debt to green up our schools?  We need to save some cash here folks. This brings up an interesting conundrum. Democrats who largely approved the bill would no doubt tell you that by making buildings greener, you are actually making them more energy efficient and less wasteful. If the slideshow mentioned above is to be believed, energy use at our schools would go down 50% and water use would decrease 40%. These long term savings should ideally grow to make up for the initial investment. But while these savings are great, they only benefit the states that run the schools, and the federal government will have to recoup this money some other way.

Paul Gasbarra

D.C. Area Crackdown Causes Immigrant Exodus

This morning’s Washington Post reports that in Prince William County enrollment in English as a Second Language (ESOL) enrollment is dropping. This is a trend encouraging to some and disturbing to others. On the one hand this frees up resources within a school district ($6 million, by some estimates), but on the other hand it leaves schools in nearby counties to incur new costs.

The reason for the drop is an exodus of foreign born students and children of foreign born parents. Prince William County has begun to enforce rules that deny services to illegal immigrants and require immigration checks of crime suspects.

Now students are being pushed to nearby schools, such as those in Fairfax County where there are already 21,000 students enrolled in ESOL. The article points out that the nearly 700 students leaving Prince William will barely register among the dense numbers already present in nearby districts, however it does get noticed. And these new students aren't moving in at the best time since local budgets are struggling in part because of the current real estate market.

Immigration advocates argue that Prince William’s practices are unfair. Many students that could be cut from these programs come from families  of mixed immigration status. One of the parents may be legal, or their children may have legal status.

This is a timely article for us here at Public Agenda. Next week, in conjunction with IBM’s conference America's Competitiveness: Hispanic Participation in Technology Careers    we will be releasing two reports concerned with what Hispanics think of public education. One report will summarize recent public opinion research among, Hispanic parents, students and young adults, and the other is a compilation of the thoughts of prominent Hispanic leaders.

About half of all Hispanic parents tend to believe that schools are too slow to teach children foreign born children English; they are also more likely to say that it is a serious problem that schools don’t teach children from different cultures to get along. Taking into consideration that Hispanic parents are more likely to say that local schools don’t get enough money, and social issues such as drugs and fighting in schools are a serious problem, the schools already appear to be a hostile place for many Hispanic students and their parents. With school districts taking actions such as those in Prince William County, that hostility appears set to continue.

Paul Gasbarra

High Expectations, but Higher Odds?

The National Center for Education Statistics released an interesting, though perhaps not surprising, report recently revealing that about 9 in 10 parents (91 percent) of children in grades 6 through 12 expect their children to continue their education beyond high school.

The expectations of children to complete college were distributed differently along racial lines. Asians were most likely to expect their child finishes college at 80 percent. 66 percent of White parents expected as much and 64 percent of Black and Hispanic also expect their students to move on to higher ed.

The report also reveals some interesting numbers on how well parents think schools are doing when it comes to providing information on how to help students plan for post-secondary education. Naturally the parents feel that preparation for post-secondary education gets better the closer their child is to graduation. Hence, 42 percent of parents with kids in grades 6-8 say that the school doesn’t do it at all. That number drops to 11 percent by the time junior reaches 11^th or 12^th grade. The level of satisfaction tends to be stable across lines of race and income, but parents of children in private school were more likely to find that their school does very well in providing information for college planning (46 percent) than those of students in public school (31 percent).

But even though almost all parents expect their kids to go on to college, our survey conducted for “Squeeze Play: How Parents and the Public Look at Higher Education Today”  reveals that 60 percent of all parents surveyed felt that many qualified students do not have the opportunity to go to college. So while parents are confident when it comes to expecting their child to go to college, their confidence flags when the question is posed in a general sense.

Paul Gasbarra

Buying Up The Rotten Apples

Continuing with the fashionable trend of the private sector helping out public education (see The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation or this article from the Wall Street Journal) The Center For Union Facts, a Washington non-profit is chipping in by buying out the nation’s worst teachers. Rather than invest their money in new educational technologies, curriculum or research methods, they are going for that favored motivational method of our Puritan forebears, public humiliation.

According to Teacher Magazine, The Center for Union Facts will invest a million dollars in an advertising campaign addressing the methods that teachers unions, such as the American Federation of Teachers, use to prevent bad teachers from being fired. They plan on selecting 10 teachers from a list of nominees and paying each teacher $10,000 to permanently quit as well as allow publication as to their reasons for being nominated. It seems like desperate measures but the intractability of tenured teachers is something of a concern for the profession.

In our 2003 report “Stand By Me” nearly half of teachers interviewed said that “The union sometimes fights to protect teacher who really should be out of the classroom.” And nearly one in four teachers said that “Sometimes everyone would be better off if the union stepped aside and let the administration fire incompetent teachers.” Most teachers acknowledge that there are those in their schools who are “simply going through the motions,” only one in five claim this isn’t so.

The Center for Union Facts takes particular issue with those teachers who are tenured. They feel that in some districts it is impossible or financially unfeasible to let a tenured teacher go. And as a third (36 percent) of the respondents in “Stand By Me” attest “Between tenure and the documentation requirements, it’s too hard for administrators to remove any but the very worst teachers.”

This isn’t to say that teachers themselves don’t need unions. A large majority of teachers see unions as a protecting them from unfair charges and poor working conditions. Eighty-one percent of teachers agree that without unions, the teacher would be vulnerable to school politics or administrators who abuse their power. Seventy-seven percent of teachers agree that without the union, teacher facing unfair charges from parent or students would have nowhere to turn. These sentiments reinforce the union’s claims for their necessity.  According to Teacher Magazine, Reg Weaver, a spokesman for the National Education Association, defends the union thusly: "This union does not support a person's incompetence. This union supports a person's right to due process,"

Apparently The Center For Union Facts thinks due process is tantamount to no process. So they have created their own process. Sign your name and confess to your sins and you will get $10,000. Obviously, anyone excepting this offer, by their own admission, has no business teaching anybody.

Paul Gasbarra

State Funding Remains Fairly Stable While Student Tuition Costs Rise

Today Inside Higher Ed ran an article discussing a study recently finished by the State Higher Education Executive Officers or SHEEO. The report reveals that state funding per student went up 3.6 percent last year, an increase that outpaces inflation. The bad news is that this number goes up and down year to year. And analysts believe it is likely to go down again soon. What is even more disheartening is that this increase is only about $300 more than what states gave in 1982 (in 2007 dollars). Meanwhile tuition costs have jumped up to $1300 in the past 24 years.

Most people don’t realize that the majority of money going into state colleges comes from the state government. Our 2007 report Squeeze Play revealed only 13 percent of those surveyed could answer this question correctly. At the same time 62 percent said that many people who are qualified don’t have an opportunity to go. Students are increasingly asked to take on the burden of growing costs and this report by the SHEEO puts some firm numbers on the nature of that increase. By comparing the burden of costs that the state shouldered in 1982 (77 percent) to those shouldered by states today (63 percent) one wonders if the student will one day be paying more of the costs than the state.

The issue of growing costs of college education is one of prominence here at Public Agenda. This past week we hosted an event in which educational experts put aside theory and statistics and got together with actual real live students to discuss higher education costs and the toll they take on students and parents. The discussion offered interesting insight, especially from the students who have made, in many cases, great sacrifices just to attend college.

The event was hosted by George Washington University and led by Frank Sesno, a CNN correspondent and professor at the school. Take a look at the fascinating coverage on CNN which you can reach here.

Paul Gasbarra

“Aw man, you got AP History next semester? I’m so jealous!”

While such utterances may have been made when I was in high school, I’d say the likelihood of hearing similar phrases was fairly low. A certain amount of grade competition was definitely present, but the culture of over-achieving academics belonged to what some might call “those kids.” Now a recent report discussed in Education Week reveals how such exclamations could become more common. The reason? Paying cash for passing AP exams.

A recent study from C Kirabo Jackson, an economics professor at Cornell University looks into the effect of offering money to students passing AP exams. The study reports that in those schools where incentive programs were offered both participation in AP courses and test scores improved.

But what is most impressive is that, according to guidance councilors, the culture of the school began to change. And the effects of paying high achievers seemed to make academics themselves seem cool. The number of students scoring 1100 on the SAT and 24 on the ACT jumped 33 percent at these schools. Schools participating in these programs also saw a jump in college enrollment.

Though the professor says he can’t conclusively say the cash was the cause for the bump, it had to play a part right? And if it did, one wonders if this is healthy. Will cash replace knowledge as the primary incentive of education? Will the temptation to cheat increase? Is it a bad thing if kids go for the dollars and happen to pick the knowledge as a side effect? Or is this tying the long term life benefits to short term rewards such as cash just a new way to emphasize the value of education? And most importantly, I passed my AP English exam, can I get retroactive benefits?

Paul Gasbarra

Harvard gives out lots of money. Is that bad?

Am I reading this right? Are other schools criticizing Harvard for giving out too much money? Help me understand the logic here. This morning’s Washington Post reveals how Harvard and other wealthy schools have been putting their endowments to work by cutting costs for less affluent students and thusly drawing criticism. Yale, will no doubt join Harvard on the firing range having followed suit.

Apparently the generosity of rich schools are making other schools look bad. George Mason University's dean of admissions and enrollment, Andrew Flage,l  complains that "The disparity in endowments and tuition costs can put the less well-heeled institutions, including mine, at a competitive cost disadvantage." The article suggests that endowments paid out to worthy students or students from arguably middle-class backgrounds are not an effort at increasing access and encouraging diversity but just a publicity stunt on behalf of these schools.

Dickenson university president William Durden goes as far as to call it so, saying "It is irresponsible in the long run and will drive up costs and subsequently -- for most of us -- tuition." But I don’t really understand (and the article doesn’t elaborate) why this is irresponsible or how it will drive up college costs.

Harvard and other very wealthy schools became so mostly by cultivating a reputation of educational leadership and quality. They do this by recruiting top talent for their instructional ranks as well as maintaining selective enrollment. This cyclical effect of strong students in and top notch hires out results in a cash infusion that true, many schools can’t compete in, but that’s why Harvard has to turn many great students away. And those students in turn go to other schools. I don’t see how Harvard is hurting other schools.

The cost of college is a problem. Public Agenda released our report “Squeeze Play: How Parents and the Public Look at Education Today” last year which details how Americans feel that a college education is more and more important when it comes to securing a comfortable lifestyle but access to college is becoming less of a possibility. Those government, corporate, non-profit, and media leaders we interviewed as a part of “Squeeze Play” emphasized the importance of giving access to low-income individuals saying, “If we don’t subsidize their education, we’re going to subsidize their food stamps.”

From my point of view, Harvard is leading by example. Looking at the big picture, the more talented individuals we usher through universities the better the investment becomes. Other than offering education at no cost, or even affordable costs, what would those who descent have Harvard do? 

Inside Higher Ed’s blog offers a more detailed treatment of Harvard’s recent effort to cut costs. But again, I find some odd comments such as the statement from Sage college’s university president, Jeanne S. Neff “If [middle income] families come to believe that it is no longer their obligation to take out loans or to marshal their resources” to send their kids to college, she said, public universities with lower tuitions and access to state-financed scholarships will say, “Hey, look here, we’re affordable.”

Firstly, I doubt middle income families will ever believe they don’t have the obligation to do what it takes to send their children to college, including taking out loans and marshaling resources and secondly, hasn’t public education always offered a more affordable alternative?

The most poignant criticism came from John Maguire, chairman and founder of Maguire Associates and a longtime admissions and financial aid expert, who suggests that this lowering of costs on one end would give Harvard license to ratchet up costs for those who can afford it, and this in turn would draw more faculty talent away from other schools. Competition for great professors has always been part of the university system.

If anything, Harvard’s move to offer aid to middle-class families is another alteration in the continually altering picture of education finance. How this landscape changes over time is something schools will have to adapt to.   

Teacher Training Looks to New Role Models

This week’s Edutopia features a timely article that addresses teacher prep programs around the nation. At the moment it seems that poorly or entirely unprepared teachers are the rule in public schools rather than the exception.

Those branches of universities which do offer teacher preparation programs often find themselves without funding and respect. And the programs have been derided for their tendency to focus on creating teachers who are adequate over focusing on creating quality teachers, as the article describes.

In response to this trend, programs around the nation are offering courses that offer in depth preparation closer to what you might see at a medical residency. These combine real world practice that students can connect with teaching theory. Schools are also focusing on candidate quality and performance, setting standards for admittance and dropping students who aren’t performing. One other measure of quality control is following up with alumni to see how well they are doing now that they have left the protective walls of academia.

It’s an interesting read and one that offers a bit of hope for the future of teacher preparation. Pubic Agenda recently completed a survey of teachers who had recently graduated from alternative and traditional education programs, the second report based on this survey “Lessons Learned: Working Without a Net” will be available Wednesday, December 12 at PublicAgenda.com.

54 percent of the alt-route teachers working in high-needs schools said that they didn’t get enough time working with a classroom teacher during their preparation period and 16 percent said they spent no time working with a teacher before their first year. Along with smaller classroom sizes, our new teachers placed improving teacher preparation for teaching in ethnically diverse schools and classrooms very high on their list.

The Edutopia  article seems to suggest that several schools have heard these complaints and are addressing the problem.

A Gift to Public Education

Public Universities got a significant endorsement this Monday in the form of a $113 million dollar grant bestowed upon UC Berkeley by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. The grant was provided in order to give a public university such as Berkeley a fair chance at retaining top tier professors who are often courted by higher paying private universities.

Public Agenda’s study “Squeeze Play: How Parents and The Public Feel About Higher Education Today” reveals that a third of Americans believe that high salaries are responsible for driving up the costs of college. Endowments such as this one may help to alleviate some of the tuition burden caused by competition among universities for the crème de la crème of academia. But while it sets a precedent for investment in public education, it only benefits one school.

Many believe that a college education is an indispensable step towards being able to lead at least a middle class lifestyle. But with the skyrocketing costs of higher education, 62% of Americans fear that many qualified motivated students don’t have an opportunity to get a higher education. Clearly, the public feels the goal of even a mid-level income is threatened. Moves like this grant offer a bit of security to those Californians looking to join or stay in the middle class.

The LA Times article which discusses the grant points out that UC Berkley has more students who come from low-income families “than all Ivy League schools and Stanford combined.” Since much of the public values higher education for its ability to provide upward mobility, the need to keep costs down, while providing a strong education is of up most importance. The Hewlett Foundation’s grant ensures that the top educators and thinkers will be available to those who may not be able to afford it at private schools. Hopefully we will see the practice of such large endowments become more widespread, easing the financial burden on students and schools alike.

Paul Gasbarra