Better data means better policy
First is the way you present the issues and problems. Lay off the data hysteria! The propaganda of bad number stories simply clouds perception, and you don’t see what the problems are. Get your data ONLY from the National Center for Education Statistics and not from unofficial purveyors who sell numbers off pushcarts on North Capitol St. just to leverage influence and gain business. The Bush Administration bought those numbers and we wound up with that silly Spellings Commission report.
Second: International statistical comparisons, in particular, are incredibly faulty, and even OECD knows that: other countries define higher ed participation and degrees differently than we do, and when population ratios are used people often forget that the U.S. is the only major country in OECD with an increasing population (and an increasing population of youth–principally due to the expansion of the Latino community). Stay away from assertions like “the US used to be #2; now we are #9.” There are no borders any more in the world of knowledge and learning: if other countries are learning more than they used to, we all benefit.
BUT it’s about time this country learned something from what other countries are doing in reforming their higher education systems. The principal case lies in the joint effort of 46 European countries under the Bologna Process, running since 1999. You want to see true accountability? They know how to do it!
Third: Speaking of accountability in higher education: it does NOT consist simply of posting numbers of degrees granted or data on the proportion of your students who like this or that aspect of your school, or test scores from a random sample of 100 student volunteers. That stuff has no reference points, no standards, i.e. you don’t know what those degrees mean. It’s documentation, not accountability. Call for agreements and definitions of what degrees truly signify. Want to know how to do that? Look at the Bologna Process!
Fourth: We have piles of access for traditional-age students: 70 percent of high school graduates go on to postsecondary education, and 80 percent go by their mid-20s. You can’t push that much higher. What we need is a higher proportion of degree completers, and to do that, try the following:
A) Special support programs to colleges and community colleges who track down adult students who left their institutions without degrees but who had accumulated at least half the credits necessary for a degree, and bring them back to school. These students will need special incentives such as
more flexible class schedules, distance learning, dedicated child-care, and fee waivers.
B) Increased outreach and support for military personnel who start (or continue) their higher education through DODs Voluntary Education Program while on active duty, and better advisement and guidance on connecting that experience to higher education when they become veterans. This is also
an access issue for low-income and minority students, both groups of which are over-represented
in the military. In other words, strengthen the bonds and processes between two major institutions
in our society which are in the knowledge distribution business. There is a huge number of actual and potential students here.
Fifth: An administration cannot micro-manage student choices of fields of study. You can encourage
science, technology, and quantitative fields all you want, but you run the risk of devaluing the students who want to study anthropology, graphic arts, journalism, history, economics, music, accounting, etc.—all of which can provide a much-needed richness of knowledge and skills to economic and community life. It’s about time that the rhetoric of Administrations recognized the economic, social, and cultural values of individuals who make these choices and encouraged them to finish their credentials. The next Administration can do this without sacrificing momentum in scientific and technical fields.
Sixth, and most controversial: we have a problem with academic preparedness of entering college and community college students that we now try to “solve” with remedial programs. Let’s try something else learned from other countries: a transitional post-high school year program, set outside both school systems and institutions of higher education, that would result in an automatic national college entry credential. In such a program, the final examinations in core subjects—English, U.S. history, post-Algebra 2 math (pre-calc, finite math, or statistics), and laboratory science—would be the same as the final examinations given at the end of the first term in the same subjects by the flagship state university in every state. Now that is “alignment”!
This post was submitted by Cliff Adelman.
Do you agree? Or do you have a different perspective? Comment on this person's advice or submit your own. You can also subscribe to the feed and get future posts delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
No comments yet.
Leave a comment