Diane Auer Jones has proposed that schools start to report a “federal regulatory compliance fee” so that students and others can see the impact of added reporting requirements. She does a nice job of explaining her proposal and the reasons such a move would be useful.

Perhaps her idea is a good one. Not only for the reasons she presents, but because it would be interesting to see how much actually is spent on required reports. A part of me wonders why it would be so difficult and costly to report graduation rates for athletes.

There just seems to be an unending chorus of voices lamenting reporting requirements.  But, per the title of this post, don’t colleges and universities have some obligation to report on the most fundamental aspect of why they exist? Don’t we have an obligation to account for whether learning occurs and people finish their education?

I agree that there have been lots of added reporting requirements, and that these add costs. But the reports that I think we should object to because they are burdensome and costly are in the non-academic areas. Perhaps any federal compliance reports might separate out costs for academic reports and non-academic. Perhaps rather than railing about too many reports, we in higher education should define what it makes sense to report and what does not. Doesn’t it make sense that we should report about learning?

Too often the loudest objections are not about useless and bureaucratic reports, but rather about reporting on the very essence of our work.

What do you think? Please feel free to leave a comment.

Mike

I object to the opening comment that Tamar Lewin makes:  “only one in five of the students who enroll in two-year institutions graduates within three years.  And even at four-year colleges, only two in five complete their degree within six years.”  As I have written in the past, the three and six year timeframes are wrong-headed, and I think the findings in this survey highlight that fact.  I am certainly interested and hopeful that students will finish their degrees.  But to say that the 150% point (3 years for a 2-year degree, 6 years for a 4-year degree) is when they should finish is silly, especially when you consider that 85 percent (per this blog’s name) of college students are either older, studying part-time, and/or working while going to school. We need to consider a longer timeframe that allows for the reality of how these students proceed through to degree completion.  

But let’s look at the study—and at the article.  What do they tell us?
•    60 percent of those who dropped out were financially independent—got no financial assistance from their parents.
•    The story flips when the parents help out—60 percent of the students who got some financial support from their parents finished their degree.
•    Of those who dropped out, 70 percent did not have scholarship or loan aid while of those who finished, only 40 percent did not receive such aid.
•    The top reason for dropping out is that it was too hard to support themselves and go to school at that same time.
•    More than 1 in 3 said that even if they got funds to cover tuition and books, they still could not afford to return to school due to family and work obligations.
•    Of those who finished, 72 percent came from households with annual income over $35,000, while of those who dropped out, more than 50% came from households with less than $35,000 per year

There are at least two things going on here. One is the 85 percent issue. We still make public policy assuming that college students go directly from high school to study full-time on a campus, and are supported by their parents. This despite the fact that 85 percent are older, and/or studying part-time, and/or financially independent, and/or working.  The second thing is that lower-income students face significant challenges.  A good number of lower income students are part of the other 85 percent.

No wonder the survey respondents did not see adding online courses or making the application process easier as solutions. They are dealing with major challenges in finding the time, money, and energy to pursue a college degree. Their ideas for child care, cost reduction, and allowing more financial aid for part-time students make complete sense for what they face.

What results will this study have? Will anyone listen to the facts about the challenges facing the vast majority of contemporary college students?  When will we stop being driven only by the assumption that the high school student and his/her parents are the singular audience for higher education public policy decision-making?

Your thoughts? Please feel free to leave a comment.

Mike

What lousy public policy. What we have developing now is a whole myriad of systems that may or may not communicate with one another, and that frustrate any serious attempt to understand what happens to students who may start at one college and end up at others.  What types of students might do that? Well, the other 85% for starters.  

So, who opposed having the feds develop a single, unified federal system?  Let me quote Peter Ewell from the article:  “It is clear that this agenda is moving forward, despite opposition from the private colleges. The accountability push is such that these numbers are just simply going to be produced whether anyone likes it or not.”  But, doing it state by state is certainly not efficient.

Ewell goes on to say that “private colleges are all in favor of data. They just don’t want anybody but them to know.”

I have blogged many times about Transparency by Design and its Web site, College Choices for Adults, which is intended to provide useful information to adults seeking to enroll in a college. A national database that could track students who attend multiple schools would be very useful for our work. We would be able to indicate how many adults who end up attending multiple schools actually finish their desired degree.  Without this information, we simply don’t know. This is but one kind of information that could be gathered from such a database. And, those institutions in Transparency by Design not only want the data, but we want to share it, to make it transparent.

Why would any colleges oppose having data available?  Because in a world devoid of data, the reliance on reputation (whether deserved or not) rules.  There are many schools that rely on reputations that may or may not have been earned, but that drive their institutional revenues. Any change to rely on something that is based on data might threaten their reputations … and their revenues.

Mr. Ewell is correct when he says that numbers are going to be produced whether anyone likes it or not. Too bad that the numbers could not be produced in the most efficient way, and in a system that considers the entire country.  But, we have public policy to prevent that … because there are some who might lose.

Please feel free to leave a comment and let me know what you think.

Mike

We all know that 40,000 students is a big number, but thinking about it in terms of other well known institutions emphasizes how dramatic this reduction really is.  For example, Penn State University enrollment is just over 40,000 students.  Thinking about California turning away roughly the same number of students that currently attend Penn State is a scary thing.  And, when you add the 10,000 student reductions Cal State has made in 2009-2010, the total number of student reductions represents roughly the enrollment of the University of Texas-Austin.

This is beyond sad news.  And, to quote the Cal State System Chancellor Charles B. Reed, “Denying students access to higher education is just about one of the worst things you can do in a recession.  The state needs our graduates to enter the workforce and help the state’s economic recovery.”  And, I would add that the country needs those graduates AND California’s recovery as well.

Perhaps the time has come to fundamentally rethink and recreate how states go about the job of making higher education available to their citizens.  Preventing more cuts like those announced at Cal State, and coming up with new solutions to fit our challenging times seems to be a responsibility we all share.  Just as the “Great Depression” resulted in important and lasting public policy changes some decades ago, perhaps our current economic situation can only be overcome with some bold changes. I am not certain just what those changes might look like, but it seems that change is imperative given the magnitude of the Cal State reductions and the likelihood that other states and systems will be announcing reductions as well.

Please feel free to leave a comment and let me know what you think.

Mike

But, I wonder how seriously.  For an organization that has “learning outcomes assessment” in its name, why only look at core learning such as writing, critical thinking and analytical reasoning. What about learning outcomes in the student’s major? At the program level? The report states that the most common approach is to use something like the Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA), and to focus on the core areas. Of course, if you aren’t going to pay attention to whatever the assessments have to tell you, maybe it is just too much trouble to think about what ought to be measured.

As I have stated many times in this blog, the basic focus of Transparency by Design and its Web site http://www.collegechoicesforadults.org has been on program-level learning outcomes. Some have criticized us because the outcomes are not directly comparable—that is because every school claims unique program outcomes, and that those outcomes differentiate their school and programs. Regardless, why isn’t any other initiative looking at that level of learning? Why isn’t the National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment encouraging that level of assessment?  If we are all going to get real about assessing learning outcomes, let’s get down to the important stuff:  what is it that we intend to have students learn in order to earn a degree?  How do we know if our graduates are actually learning what they are supposed to be?

I would hope the courage is out there for others to begin to do what the Transparency by Design institutions have started. But, the outlook is not promising. Just recently I was warned by a person from a traditional school that we should all be careful what we measure, because if you measure it, you may not be pleased with what you find.  You certainly would not want what you find to get out in the open!

The approach of the institutions in Transparency by Design is the exact opposite. Let’s measure what is important and, if we are not doing well today, let’s get about fixing it.  It is unfortunate that much of higher education goes through the motions of assessment, avoids assessing the really important things, and then ignore what they find.  I would suggest that it is precisely because of this culture that we are under such pressure to measure more, be transparent about what we find, and use assessment to drive improvement.

Please feel free to leave a comment. Thank you.

Mike

I empathize with the blight of the public university. While federal stimulus funds may be saving the day for the 2009-2010 academic year, and maybe even into 2010-2011, the 2011-2012 year seems to portend disaster. These institutions must do something different and, likely, dramatic.

But, I am concerned as the public universities consider their options. Let’s say the decision had been made to privatize. Would that not likely lead to fewer of Colorado’s young people having access to a public university education? Certainly that would be one scenario. That leads to another idea discussed by the Board of Governors: to limit admission for students who reside in the state, and to increase the number of students from out of state since they pay higher tuition and fees. That would require some level of policy change since current rules are that state funded schools must assure that 55 percent of their student body is comprised of in-state students.

It is not just Colorado that is wrestling with the budget challenges and arriving at the idea of increasing revenues by admitting non-resident students. Inside Higher Ed reports on a number of states either increasing non-resident numbers or considering doing so. A review of where most states are in terms of serving their residents through their public universities reveals that most schools are very reasonable and are fulfilling their missions to serve students from the state. This article cites the University of Vermont as an exception, with ¾ of its freshmen coming from outside Vermont. But, Vermont is an exception in that it is a blended institution—both private and (as they describe it) “quasi-public.”  The University of Delaware is reported to have more than half its students coming from outside the state. I will simply note that both are small states.

Concerns about possible changes to place a preference on non-resident students are basically about equity of access.  The concern is about state schools “enrolling wealthy white students.”  Pat Callan, president of the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education, is quoted on the potential impact of such a move in California, “So, now that the majority of kids in the state will be more Latino, you are going to recruit more out-of-state students who are likely to be white?”

This equity concern is an important one. There is no question that public universities and their boards are going to faced with some tough decisions and some basic considerations about the appropriate mission of the public school. They would be wise to consider the cautions offered in the second article above about whether it will be an easy sell to out-of-state students.  Once again, it will likely be only the elite publics that will find it possible to make the sale.

Please feel free to leave a comment.

Mike

But what they propose is just plain silly; self-serving but still silly. They describe ongoing nursing shortages, saying that the growing shortages caused “93% of hospital-based registered nurses to report a lack of sufficient time and staff to maintain patient safety, detect complications early, and collaborate with other health care team members.” I am not at all sure how they conclude that this is a problem to be solved by education but the idea of increasing the barriers to practice nursing by requiring a bachelor’s degree seems counter-productive at best. This is further evidence that not only is health care dysfunctional but so are the politics of nursing and nursing licensure.

What really irritates me about this piece is that the authors attack (though they insist that is not really what they are doing) the associate degree in nursing (ADN) and the colleges that offer these programs, many of them community colleges. Patricia Benner, one of the authors, is quoted as saying such a change “would hold community college nursing programs more accountable.” That “the minimum amount of time a student has to spend in these ‘two-year programs’ is actually three years.”

Fortunately, Kim Tinsley of North Arkansas College and a member of the National Organization for Associate Degree Nursing pointed out that “I teach in a rural setting and the main advantage of offering a two-year RN degree is that it puts the nurse graduate to work in a shorter amount of time so they can support their family. They cannot afford four years of BSN classes and not work. The ADN student does sometimes have to take up to four years to complete their degree but it is due to the fact that they are working (sometimes full time) and have a family to support. The average age of our students is 27. The majority of our students are either married with a family or are a single parent. They cannot afford the time nor resources to attend a four-year program.”

Thanks to Ms. Tinsley. What her statement lays out clearly is that this is not just an attack on a type of degree but on the people who most often pursue that degree—the other 85%. The students in the ADN programs are older. Rather than being financially dependent on their parents, they more often have families of their own who depend on them. And, whether a family or not, they are often working.

Let’s be honest here. Schools like those that the authors of this report work at are not willing or able to serve the audiences that attend the ADN programs. The authors say that these BSN schools would need to “increase capacity by approximately 90 percent.” Is that likely to happen during a recession? Absolutely not and it would not happen during the best of economic times. That is because BSN programs at research universities use the undergraduate programs as feeders for their graduate programs. They want traditional students who compete for entry into elite programs. They don’t want to serve the folks in the ADN programs because the students in these programs don’t fit the mold and some, if not many, of these students might require remedial assistance. The fact is that there is a racial and class overlay here that is just below the surface. Community colleges and other ADN providers are serving a far more racially diverse audience than the BSN schools as well as many low-income students.

The authors claim that they are not opposed to the community colleges and their suggested change might lead to better articulation agreements. Yes, when hell freezes over. All we need to do is to look at the current state of such articulation agreements nationally to have one more proof point that schools like the ones the authors are defending remain elitist and are not interested in seriously getting at the fact that it is the diverse and low income students who are earning ADN degrees and becoming registered nurses. These nurses are holding our health care system together and there is no way that a group of BSN nurses admitted under current admissions standards that are intended to limit access will ever replace them.

The truth is that this call is about getting more funding for the BSN programs. Any call for continued elitism and raising barriers to entry in a profession that is suffering serious shortages is just plain silly.

I encourage you to share your thoughts.

Mike

Your thoughts? Please feel free to leave a comment.

Mike

Predictably, the higher education establishment dismissed the idea. Frank Balz of the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities (NAICU) is quoted as saying that there is not a lack of information, but a glut that is hard to wade through and that “its hard to see how adding a layer of bureaucracy will improve anything.” This represents a viewpoint held by many that any new requirements or expectations for accountability should be resisted.  I do not share that view. Anything that empowers the prospective student to make good choices is of great value. And, while there may be lots of data out there, very little has been converted into meaningful, actionable information.  That is especially true when it comes to assessing learning outcomes. The proposal by Soares is probably not perfect, but it certainly is a step in the right direction. And a step forward in an inevitable march toward greater assessment of, and transparency about, whether learning actually occurs in our schools.

I am pleased to see this call for action.  Your thoughts? Please feel free to leave a comment.

Mike

Soares uses the term working learners to describe those students who are already in the workforce and are “juggling work and learning.”  He notes that “75 percent of college undergraduates in the 1999-2000 school year were in some way nontraditional.”  He is talking about the other 85 percent of college students who did not come directly to full-time college study on a campus and remain dependent on their parents.  And, consistent with the points made in this blog, he notes that public policy shortchanges these students.  He states that “Pell Grant treats working learners, most of whom pursue postsecondary credentials as nontraditional students, less favorably than traditional students.”  He supports this viewpoint by pointing out that one of the characteristics that define the nontraditional student is being financially independent “for purposes of determining eligibility for financial aid.”  Noting that 60 percent of the 5 million low-income Americans who received a Pell Grant during the 2007-8 academic year were financially independent, he states that “the statutorily mandated federal needs analysis that determines the amount of federal aid puts far more burden on these older students than on their dependent peers.”  “A single, working learner Pell Grant recipient earning $30,000 or less can be required to pay at least 30 percent of their gross earning for postsecondary education.”  He goes on to point out how the Pell Grant program limits aid for students who attend college less than half-time, does not fund shorter-than-semester length courses, and “penalizes students for work.”  Soares concludes that “our financial aid structure today is inadequate to accommodate the different circumstances of working learners.”  He correctly states that working learners need the following:

•    Flexible financial assistance that promotes getting college credit over time
•    Access to 21st century-career coaching to design a successful work-education path
•    Accurate information about education and training quality
•    Educational institutions able to adapt their service delivery to working learners needs

Again, Soares’ paper is an important one, and I highly recommend giving it a read.  Not only because it aligns with the concerns expressed in this blog, but because he makes a compelling argument for the national significance of educating today’s workforce and the failure of our current systems to enable the necessary mix of learning and work.
I think that this paper further documents the serious public policy misunderstanding about what our country needs in regard to postsecondary education due to a reliance on a romantic view of what college-going is in today’s world.  And, it correctly points to some of the policies that not only don’t encourage the working learner, but place barriers in the way of their participation in postsecondary education.  While I am pleased to see a paper like this, I only wish I could claim optimism about whether positive change is coming.  Instead, I see messages out of our nation’s capital that there is concern about things like credit hours – seat time. At a time when we desperately need visionary leadership, we are seeing retrenchment and calls for greater controls. The fact is that federal financial aid, including the Pell Grant, is locked into old ways of thinking about education and is getting more and more locked into approaches that block rather than encourage either innovation or support for working learners.

Your thoughts? Please feel free to leave a comment.

Mike