The National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education “promotes public policies that enhance Americans’ opportunities to pursue and achieve high-quality education and training beyond high school.”  The organization also “prepares action-oriented analyses of pressing policy issues facing the states and the nation regarding opportunity and achievement in higher education-including two- and four-year, public and private, for-profit and nonprofit institutions.”  I have cited their Measuring Up reports in previous blog postings as well as utilized some of their published data in my research.  The next, and possibly last, Measuring Up report may be issued this fall or early next year. Read the rest of this entry »

I recently had the chance to read a research report titled “With Their Whole Lives Ahead of Them,” published by Public Agenda with financial support from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.  The authors of the report surveyed over 600 young adults between the ages of 22 and 30.  The purpose of the survey was to compare the answers of students who dropped out of college to the answers of students who graduated within the three year (for community colleges) or six year (for four-year colleges) standards as measured by the U.S. Department of Education.  Jean Johnson and Jon Rochkind, along with Amber Ott and Samantha DuPont, wanted to validate the reasons why students depart from colleges before graduating and see if the students themselves offered reasons different than many of the recent research studies.

The authors point out that according to the U.S. Department of Education, only 20 percent of community college students graduate within three years and only 40 percent of four year college students graduate within six years.  In fact, only 27 percent of college students attend the traditional residential college that most people envision as the idyllic college environment.  Even more telling of the changes in college student profiles, 45 percent of students attending four year colleges reported working more than 20 hours per week and 60 percent of students attending two year colleges reported working more than 20 hours per week.

Read the rest of this entry »

An August 11th article in The New York Times caught my attention.  Written by Tamar Lewin, the article describes a policy brief released by the College Board which concludes that for the most part, recent graduates are carrying “manageable” debt loads.  Using data published in the Department of Education’s National Postsecondary Student Aid Study, the policy brief notes that while the number of students using loans to pay for their post-secondary educations has increased in the last five years, the volume of students who carry overly burdensome levels of debt upon graduation remains small in comparison.

According to the policy brief, of the students who earned a degree or certificate program during the 2007-2008 academic year, some 41 percent graduated with no debt whatsoever.  Those students borrowing more than $40,000 to pay for their educations represented only six percent of total student borrowing.  Students borrowing money to pay for a certificate program carried substantially less debt overall than those borrowing money to pay for an associate or bachelors degree.  A meager one percent of those borrowing money for a certificate program found themselves $40,000 or more in debt upon graduation while ten percent of those borrowing to complete a bachelors degree carried that level of debt or more upon graduation.  The above statistics found in the College Board’s policy brief are logical when one considers the number of credits required to complete each of the three degree types compared above.  What’s not logical is the $40,000 threshold selected to evaluate reasonable debt loads.  Obtaining a $40,000 loan for a certificate program is almost certain to lead to a negative ROI unless the certificate is related to technical training in an extremely high paying profession.  Even then, it is a risky venture.  While borrowing $40,000 for a four year degree sounds better, it may not be relative to the average loan balance of graduating students.  The College Board briefing does not take into account the students who borrow money to attend college who don’t graduate at all, or the students who attend college until their money runs out.  Using limited outcomes with a broad brush to stimulate policy discussions can be misleading.  With approximately half of college freshmen graduating in six years, we shouldn’t ignore the half that don’t finish.

Read the rest of this entry »

I recently read an interesting article by David Brooks called “The Education Gap.”  Published in The New York Times on September 25, 2005, Brooks talks about the ability of colleges to address the inequities between poverty and wealth.  He points out the fact that only 28 percent of Americans have college degrees but that most of those with degrees find themselves in social situations where almost everybody has been to college.

Brooks notes that behavioral differences are starting to surface between the groups.  According to Brooks, divorce rates are twice as high for high school grads as college grads, high school grads are twice as likely to smoke, high school grads are much less likely to exercise, college grads are twice as likely to vote, college grads are twice as likely to volunteer, and college grads are twice as likely to donate blood.

Brooks maintains that today’s information society has increased the gap between high school and college graduates.  In an information society, a college degree is a must.  Students need to recognize the importance of that as early as ninth grade in order to prepare for college.  Students from families with parents who have attended college have a greater chance of going to college than students from families that don’t have a parent who attended college.  Furthermore, Brooks states that students in the lowest per capita income quartile of the population have an 8.6 percent chance of graduating from college versus students in the top income quartile who have a 74.9 percent chance of graduating from college.

Read the rest of this entry »

I read an editorial from the Pasadena, California Star News entitled “Higher Ed Needs a Redo.”  The article discusses the premises, philosophy, and outcomes of California’s Master Plan issued in 1960 and states that it’s time for a revision to a document that is approaching 50 years old.  The article mentions the 30+ percent tuition increase at the University of California and the tuition increases at the California State University System (CSU) that have reached the point where students pay more in tuition than the state pays.  The writer notes that this is a long way from the original Master Plan which guaranteed a free education to anyone qualified for admission.   The editorial notes that during the recession of the 1990’s, CSU’s enrollment decreased by 50,000 and it took the state years to recover.  Lastly, the California House and Senate have agreed to meet to discuss a revision of the Master Plan on its 50th anniversary.  The timing is fortuitous given the budget crisis.

As I read this article, seemingly the 500th that I’ve read about California’s crisis in higher education funding, it reminded me of the data available through the annual State Higher Education Finance report issued by the State Higher Education Executive Officers (SHEEO).  On August 9, 2009, SHEEO issued their sixth report which is for FY 2008.  I highly recommend this report for anyone interested in understanding the funding of public higher education in America.  What’s important to note about this report is that it shows positive progress in higher education (since it’s for the 2007-2008 funding year) but notes that 2009 and 2010 will probably be different given the impact of the recession.  Supplementary tables are maintained by the State Higher Education Executive Officers (SHEEO) on their website at www.sheeo.org.

Read the rest of this entry »

I placed a pre-publication order for Curtis Bonk’s latest book, The World is Open: How Web Technology is Revolutionizing Education, and was not disappointed when it arrived.  Bonk, Professor of Instructional Systems Technology at Indiana University, identifies ten key trends in technology that are impacting education as we know it.  He has coined an acronym, WE-ALL-LEARN, for those trends that are identified as:

• Web Searching in the World of e-Books
• E-Learning and Blended Learning
• Availability of Open Source and Free Software
• Leveraged Resources and OpenCourseWare
• Learning Object Repositories and Portals
• Learner Participation in Open Information Communities
• Electronic Collaboration
• Alternate Reality Learning
• Real-Time Mobility and Portability
• Networks of Personalized Learning

Read the rest of this entry »