The first article, from The Chronicle of Higher Education, discusses the concept of “badges” that are awarded by various websites, training companies, individuals, etc. The concept is that the badge is relatively easy to earn (to keep the learner motivated and engaged) and indicates that they have achieved a certain skill level or learning competency.  At the Khan Academy, students receive a “Great Listener” badge for sitting through 30 minutes of video lectures and can earn an “Awesome Listener” badge after completing a full hour of video lectures.  In addition, visitors and users of that site can earn badges indicating “Master of Algebra” or “Challenge Patches.”  Similarly, MITx is a newly announced venture by Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), slotted to be released in an experimental prototype version in the spring of 2012 and designed to recognize people who complete MIT’s online courses and successfully pass the tests and quizzes.  MIT has an arrangement with OpenStudy to offer badges to students who are helpful in course discussions.  The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation has a $2 million grant to test the badge platform in education.  With the Foundation’s support, The Mozilla Foundation (best known for the Firefox browser) is “building an Open Badge Infrastructure to enable the interoperability and collection of badges” which will “support badges from any issuer across the Internet.” 

Both The Chronicle of Higher Education and Inside Higher Education wrote about the tenured Stanford professor who has left to form a startup, Know Labs.  Sebastian Thrun and a colleague taught an artificial intelligence MOOC (Massively Open Online Course) this summer to more than 160,000 students and he plans to commercialize that type of course through the Udacity portal owned by his startup, Know Labs. Thrun’s venture will not only offer courses developed and taught by him but also by others.  One of the first courses that Udacity will offer is “Building a Search Engine” which will be seven weeks in length and which will be taught by David Evans, Associate Professor of Computer Science at the University of Virginia.  Thrun is betting that the word (grades/recommendation) of a highly regarded professor will win over prospective employers or current employers of students taking courses.

Richard Vedder, an economist at Ohio University, wrote an article for the Chronicle’s Innovations blog entitled “Beware: Alternative Certification is Coming.”  Most of the article talks about Straighterline’s lower priced college course offerings and the announcement last week that Straighterline is offering students the opportunity to take the Educational Testing Service (ETS) iSkills test and the Council on Aid to Education’s (CAE) Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA) test (the one made famous by New York University Professor of Sociology and Education, Richard Arum and University of Virginia Assistant Professor of Sociology, Josipa Roksa in their book, Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on College Campuses).  Vedder also discusses the Khan Academy and MIT certification offerings.  My favorite paragraph from his article relates to his discussion of the first week of beginning economics courses when professors explain the point that:  “If the price of something rises a lot, people look for substitutes.  Resources are scarce and they [people] maximize their utility by shifting away from high priced goods or services to the lower priced good or service.”

The comments sections in the online postings of these articles range the gamut from commending the idea to ridiculing it.  I happen to think that these alternatives to traditional higher education are to be expected as part of the continuing onslaught of alternatives for a service that many can either not afford or believe is overpriced.  As Christensen states in his books about innovation (specifically Disrupting Class: How Disruptive Innovation Will Change the Way the World Learns and The Innovative University: Changing the DNA of Higher Education from the Inside Out), it’s not always the disrupter that succeeds, but sometimes the incumbent who adopts the disruptive technology and deploys it successfully.

One of the issues that I see with badges is the issue of identity verification and assuring that the person who earned the badge is actually the person who did the work.  Just like the recent SAT test taking scandal on Long Island, if I have a talent at taking a certification course and there are no checks and balances in the system, I may be able to take the course/test for others using their identity.  That problem can be solved, but some solutions are more expensive than others and the expensive solutions may overweigh the cost of the badge or the alternative certification. 

As soon as employers start accepting the badges, the value equation for higher education will lower, putting additional stress on a system that is already stressed by its high prices.  If employers value the training of a superstar professor over a university, that will be another disruptive force to the sector.  The situation reminds me of the scenarios described by Nicholas Carr in his book, The Big Switch (which I wrote about in my blog in July 2008).  Carr’s premise is that the lower cost of technology switches the power from institutions with lots of capital to the individual entrepreneur who is able to “rent” powerful servers and technology from vast farms owned by Google, Microsoft, etc.  Having accreditation and a fancy campus with many faculty and staff may not overwhelm a solo professor/instructor able to convey valuable knowledge to students and to “certify” them by awarding a badge.

The fact that “badges” and other forms of alternative certifications are surfacing daily is another example of the evidence that traditional higher education is overpriced and under siege.  According to a recent Pew Research Center survey, the primary reason that students don’t attend or complete college is financial.  In fact, 57% of adults responding in the survey said that the higher education system does not provide good value for the investment and 75% said that it is not affordable.  The trend is for U.S. employers to seek workers with at least some post-secondary education.  If our colleges and universities are unable to provide employers with graduates with these credentials, it opens opportunities to corporations, organizations, or even individuals offering the alternative credentialing.  Colleges and universities should look to some of these alternatives as viable means to providing a lower cost education as well as a way to preserve or grow their existing enrollments.

In an article in The Chronicle of Higher Education, I read about the eduMOOC 2011 being hosted by the University of Illinois at Springfield, but at the time of Professor Couros’ keynote address, the course had not started.  However, Couros stimulated my interest in MOOCs by inviting all 900 conference participants to register for a MOOC at his university entitled EC&I 831: Social Media and Education.  According to Couros, the MOOC is free unless you want to take it for academic credit AND the course is dependent upon having the non-credit-seeking students attend.  I attempted to register immediately for Couros’ course, but registrations are closed until August.

Meanwhile, I conducted a little research on MOOCs.  Probably some of the best information can be obtained from YouTube videos assembled by Dave Cormier and his associates at the University of Prince Edward Island.  In “What is a MOOC?,” Cormier argues that a MOOC is a response to a world with information overload.  It is a course with facilitators, materials, and participants.  It is “an event in which people who care about a topic get together to talk about it.”  Participants make connections between ideas, materials, and the facilitators and participants.  The course is part of a way of building learning by creating networks that enable the participants to increase their lifelong learning.  Cormier’s “Success in a MOOC” video provides five key points for participants in a MOOC to keep in mind.  My favorite is the last one, focus.  Given that the idea of the MOOC, according to Cormier, is to facilitate a learning network in a world with information overload, it seems that participating in a MOOC with as many as 3,000 participants might contribute to that overload without a specific focus by the participant.

While I have not yet participated in a MOOC, the concept and the possibilities stimulate many ideas.  Formal online learning has enabled universities like APUS to bring together faculty with theoretical and practical experience and students who either have an interest in a field of study or practical experience in that field or profession.  Distance is not an issue.  MOOCs seize on the advantages of technology, the internet, and social media.  For a MOOC to be successful, the facilitators want as many knowledgeable people as possible to facilitate and participate.   My guess is that Alec Couros invites every participant at every conference he attends to sign up for EC&I 831.  While the conversion rate isn’t as important as it might be if you paid for advertising, the level of enthusiasm for the participants will undoubtedly be high given the topic and the currency of the material.

I can see the possibilities for MOOCs to expand beyond higher education to include associations, clubs, corporations, municipalities, etc.  If the concept is to provide an “event” to discuss a topic in which people get together and talk in an instructional way, the opportunities abound for learning, networking, and collaboration with people with the same interests.  As I mentioned earlier, I intend to enroll in EC&I 831 but I might take a peek at the eduMOOC 2011 course as well.  It appears that enrollment is still open even though the course has begun.  Let me know if you have experience with a MOOC as a facilitator or as a participant.

A couple of weeks ago, I read an interesting article on The Chronicle of Higher Education’s Wired Campus blog.  The Wired Campus blog frequently has interesting information on how technology is being used in classrooms.  In his April 15th posting, Ben Wieder details how one group of students at Lehigh University used technology to connect with a very unlikely group, Libyan rebels.

Here’s how it came to be:  Issa Hakim, a Libyan engineering graduate student at Lehigh put his studies on hold when violence erupted in his home country to return there and fight alongside the rebels attempting to overthrow Qaddafi.  Hakim’s advisor, John P. Coulter, explains to Wieder that he (and others at the university) were and continue to be very concerned for Hakim but have been able to maintain contact with him since he’s been overseas.  Hakim and Coulter saw a unique learning opportunity for Coulter’s other students and set about establishing a meeting for those students and members of the Libyan rebels. 

Using Skype and a PowerPoint presentation, Coulter’s students were able to interact with Libyan rebels.  Naturally, the rebels asserted their justification for revolution and sat in front of a banner reading, “Libyan revolution highly appreciates the coalition intervention,” signaling their gratitude for the international community’s response to the violence in their country.  The students had the opportunity to ask direct questions of the rebels and for their part, the rebels expressed their interest in conveying their story to those they feel can help their cause – American students who may eventually become leaders of the nation.

Several comments have been posted to the article – some positive, some not so positive.  Some commentators have noted that the meeting was nothing more than a propaganda opportunity for the rebels and, in response, others have accused the “propaganda theorists” of being “Qaddafi loyalists.”  Regardless of one’s political opinion, there can be no questioning the potential value of such interactions.  Through the use of technology, the students who participated in the meeting were given the opportunity to hear first-hand from a group that otherwise may remain quite mysterious for the average American.  And, if we are to expect our future leaders to be open-minded, forward-thinking individuals, what better way of preparing them than providing information from the source and then allowing them to discern what is of value and what may have been simple propaganda? 

I would like to applaud Issa Hakim and John Coulter for their innovative use of technology in the classroom.  While these students may have been inundated by media coverage of the events unfolding in Libya, they had the benefit of asking their specific questions of the participants themselves thanks to the technology.  Their opinions may not have been altered by what they heard from that group, but the noteworthy event is that they had the opportunity to hear from them firsthand. 

Sunday’s session for presidents and chancellors had the following topics:  Vision and Change at BYU-Idaho: A Model for America’s Colleges and Universities, Information Technology:  Seize the Day, and a luncheon at which Terry Hartle, SVP of Government and Public Affairs of ACE spoke about the pending Department of Education regulations regarding Credit Hours, State Regulation, Gainful Employment, Accreditation, and Misrepresentation.  Later in the day, Yale’s President Richard Levin spoke about “Why Colleges and Universities Matter.”  I also attended a session hosted by Stan Ikenberry, former president of the University of Illinois and ACE, and George Kuh, Professor Emeritus of Higher Education at Indiana University Bloomington and the founding director of the Center for Postsecondary Research and the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE), regarding assessment and ways in which institutions implement it.

Having the conference in Washington provided some benefits.  Eduardo Ochoa, Assistant Secretary of Postsecondary Education at the U.S. Department of Education was an unscheduled speaker at the luncheon and provided a few comments regarding the administration’s position regarding higher education and reminded the group that he had served as a provost at Sonoma State University.  He also stated that he was unable to provide a statement about three of the issues because of a lawsuit against the Department.  Terry Hartle’s major points were that the industry can regulate itself and does not need increased federal regulation at a time when there are many changes occurring as well as innovations required in order to remain competitive.

Rick Levin’s lecture provided three main points:  (1) the basic research principle of our universities is a driver of our nation’s growth and healthcare improvements, (2) the diverse array of higher education institutions provides an education to a broad workforce, and (3) our colleges are the principal avenue of upward mobility for our citizens.  President Levin is an economist and unabashedly stated that his lecture had an economic focus although his sincere comment that “the most profound consequence of higher education is that it improves the soul” was not economically based.

As one of a number of presidents invited to attend the session on assessment, I was pleasantly surprised about the depth of discussion.  Our comments were recorded by a researcher for a project sponsored by the National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment (NILOA) and all of us participating received the prerequisite Institutional Review Board (IRB) disclosure.  Assessment has been an interest of the accrediting bodies for the last ten years or so, but usually is not a topic about which college and university presidents are conversant.  The group representing a variety of institutions ranging from public research universities to private liberal arts colleges to an online university.  All the presidents in attendance were focused on the measurement of learning outcomes at their institution.

Many years ago I took a course in oral history at Duke.  Interviewing people who participated in a historical event years after the event took place gave me an appreciation for the fact that reporters write about an event from their perspective which may not be the perspective of the participants.  While some of the lectures and panels at this year’s annual meeting have been discussed in articles published by The Chronicle of Higher Education and Inside Higher Ed, those articles are related to specific topics.  As a somewhat regular attendee of ACE’s annual meetings, I observed a difference through the statements of the speakers, the questions of the participants, and the general tone of the conversations at the social events.  Usually, the major determinants of change in any sector are the market or the government or both.   This year may be the year where a need for change is finally recognized by the entire sector.

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.

Lewin points out in her article that “over all, for all kinds of degrees and settings, the median student loan debt of borrowers in 2007-08 was $15,123, up 11 percent from…2003-04.”  There are many who argue that even this amount of student debt is too much.  It seems ironic that today’s students seem to realize the importance of a college education as evidenced by increasing enrollments nationwide yet are often hindered in their efforts by the daunting costs.  A later article in the September 4th issue of The Wall Street Journal cites evidence of the government’s National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS) that two-thirds of college students borrow money for college while only 12 years ago, just over half of all college students borrowed money to fund their educations with the average amount borrowed significantly less ($13,172) than it is today ($23,186 according to the article).

An article published in The Chronicle of Higher Education on the same day the New York Times article appeared takes a different view on the data presented in the report.  The author, Beckie Supiano, writes of the increasing level of student debt over the last five years rather than focusing on the 41 percent who manage to graduate with no student debt.  Supiano also points out in her article that the data does not account for PLUS parent loans, loans to students from family members or friends, or credit card debt accumulated from paying college tuition.  College students and recent graduates are carrying more credit card debt than their counterparts who graduated only four years ago.  According to a recent study conducted by Sallie Mae, today’s graduates leave college with 41 percent more credit card debt than those who graduated only four years ago with one in five owing at least $7,000 in credit card debt upon graduation.  Only 20 percent of students with credit card debt reported paying off their balances every month.  Considering the increasing levels of credit card debt among today’s college students and recent graduates, taking such debt into consideration may dramatically change the report’s conclusions. 

While the College Board appears to find these results reassuring, there are several elements of the big picture that should be given consideration.  First, “manageable” is a relative term.  What may be “manageable” for one individual may not be for another.  While there is obvious value in identifying trends in the higher education industry, we must be careful to realize that individual cases matter.  As the report states, there are still at least ten percent of the 2008 graduating class who are carrying $40,000 or more in student debt.  When the National Center for Public Policy in Higher Education issues its annual Measuring Up report, it reports college affordability data by income quintile since earnings above or below these thresholds can be quite influential over the ability of a student to attend college.  Given the fact that students from the higher income quintile groups have a higher college completion rate, the College Board’s usage of data from graduates only doesn’t reflect the overall picture.

Additionally, in today’s turbulent economic conditions, job prospects for recent college graduates are limited.  Factor in jobs that pay a “good” salary and the options shrink that much more.  As I discussed in an article earlier this summer, recent college graduates are struggling to find relevant jobs, much less one that pays them a salary high enough to live and pay off their student loans in a timely manner.  A May 9 article in The Wall Street Journal predicted that “even those who land jobs will likely suffer lower wages for a decade or more compared to those lucky enough to graduate in better times.”  As The Wall Street Journal article of September 4th points out, many recent college graduates are so economically strapped by student debt upon graduation that they are beginning to delay significant milestones in their lives including getting married, buying houses, and having children.  The article notes that a 2006 survey conducted by Mathew Greenwald & Associates, Inc. found that of 1,508 college graduates under the age of 35, 39 percent believe that it will take them more than ten years to pay off their household’s education-related debt. 

Lastly, the College Board  analysis  does not differentiate between full-time students and part-time students.  Attending part-time not only allows a student to maintain some form of employment while in school, it also may be a method used to avoid incurring significant student debt.  The Associated Press (AP) published an article on August 28th that outlines President Obama’s plan to boost Pell Grants in an attempt to not only increase access to college opportunities but to provide greater affordability for low-income students.  The plan would “ensure lower interest rates for need-based college loans” and “provide more college aid to veterans.”  Pell Grants are funds that a recipient is not required to pay back.  Even with President Obama’s stated goals for the Pell Grant system, however, many question whether the initiative goes far enough in addressing the economic burdens of attending college.  For example, as the AP article describes, “the maximum Pell Grant last year was $4,731” while “public college tuition and fees were $6,585.”  It is important to note that not every Pell Grant recipient receives the maximum amount and even if he or she is so lucky, there remains a shortfall of nearly $2,000 still needed to attend even a public college.  Additionally, there are no caps on tuition increases in the Federal Financial Aid system similar to the Medicare and Medicaid systems in healthcare.  Increasing Pell Grants may not make any headway if colleges continue to increase tuitions at rates higher than the earnings of the average family.

 The College Board data does not reassure me that today’s students are not carrying as much debt as many previously thought. There are conflicting sources of data that make it appear that the College Board’s policy piece is not representative of the entire college continuum.  I think the nation’s policymakers would be better off commissioning a consumer survey to see what the debt expectations are of our graduating high school seniors and their families and then comparing that data to the various sectors (fulltime, part-time, etc.).  The enrollment shift that appears to be occurring this fall and may well continue into the spring semester and next year may prove that the student consumers have become more educated than the organizations who study them.

Mr. Pernsteiner believes that all the solutions generated so far out of the current crisis are “Band-Aids.”  He talked about the slipping position of college educated Americans versus other nations, the cutback in funding to public institutions by the states, and the growing percentage of Latinos who have been a traditionally underserved group in higher education. “More students, different students, fewer dollars, more control, and more accountability,” Mr. Pernsteiner said. “If you lay those things down end to end, you have a series of puzzles.”

Mr. Pernsteiner said that the solutions to these puzzles will not be reached by cutting costs.  He cited the software industry 10 years ago and said that many of the ideas expressed for cutting costs now appear similar to ideas expressed in that industry.  [Note:  the article does not mention whether or not Mr. Pernsteiner continued that analogy regarding the software industry to mention its dramatic consolidation over the past few years.]  Mr. Pernsteiner said that the solution to the puzzles lies with institutions’ greatest assets:  their faculty.  He further said, “Unless and until the faculty engage, we will not succeed in meeting this challenge.”

Carlson ended the article with a poignant statement about Mr. Pernsteiner asking the audience: how do you get the faculty to engage these challenges?  Evidently, the audience was silent.

I agree with George Pernsteiner that cutting costs won’t solve the problem.  I also agree with his statement that there are a series of puzzles that need to be solved in order to effectively address the larger problem.  Part of the problem is that many institutions of higher education have evolved into complex organizations which are difficult to manage and operate in a rapidly changing, economic downturn.  At all institutions, faculty have a key role in academic decision-making relating to instruction and curriculum and at some institutions, the concept of shared-governance is embraced, usually denoting a governance relationship between the faculty and the administration.  Managing any type of business in an economic downturn is difficult when only a few are entrusted with making the decisions.  Regardless of the situation, it is up to the leadership of the institution to communicate effectively and promptly with its constituents when faced with tough decisions.

On Friday of last week, the faculty union at Cal State approved a two day furlough (days off without pay per month) proposed by Chancellor Charles Reed.  At the same time, the faculty union voted 79 to 4 percent in favor of a no confidence vote for the Chancellor.  The extremely large gap in the no confidence indicates to me that the lines of communication in this crisis could have been more open.  An article in The Chronicle of Higher Education quotes the Chancellor saying that the vote was just a small percentage of the faculty and that the faculty  should be directing their anger toward the California legislature and not him since the legislature should increase Cal State funding.  In addition to the furloughs, Cal State intends to balance its budget by increasing tuition by 20 percent and reducing its total number of students in the system by 40,000 by the 2010-2011 school year.

Cal State’s  Chancellor’s comments and Pernsteiner’s speech point out the conundrum.  One Chancellor says that faculty need to be engaged and another says that the legislature is to blame.  Neither suggests a solution.  One (Pernsteiner) states that cutting costs won’t solve the problem.  The other seems to imply that he should not have had to cut costs.  California voters aren’t going to be happy that 40,000 fewer Californians will gain admittance to the Cal State system.  Without some out of the box collaborative thinking, it appears that no one is going to come out on top in California and elsewhere, least of all the students and their families.  That’s the tragedy of this crisis and all troubled institutions should take a look at all types of higher education institutions to see if there may lessons on how to restructure or adapt to the changes in funding.  Tuition-dependent institutions may be able to provide examples of how to manage to match incoming tuition revenues and expenses.  Online institutions may be able to provide examples of successful higher education institutions that require little capital in the form of classroom, dormitory, and dining facilities.  The troubled institutions  may  also want to re-examine their missions and make sure that the adjustments that they make minimize the impact on the mission rather than just the personal goals of the administration or any other special interest group.  After all, why should we waste a perfectly good crisis?

According to a May 2009 report published by the Brookings Institute, enrollments in community colleges increased between 2000-2001 and 2005-2006 by 2.3 million students.  In total, community colleges enroll approximately 45 percent of the nation’s college students.  Community college populations represent far greater diversity than is found on traditional four-year campuses.  According to the Brookings Institute, in 2004, 67 percent of Latino and 47 percent of African-American students entering college were enrolling in community colleges.  Given the large volume of community colleges in the nation, they provide affordable and convenient options for many groups otherwise underrepresented in other higher education institutions.  Community colleges are also appealing for non-traditional-aged college students, many of whom are juggling families and full time jobs. 

Federal, state, and local funding for community colleges has been abysmal when compared to funding for public four-year colleges and universities.  By one estimate, four-year public colleges receive greater than three times the amount provided to community colleges per full time student.  According to the Brookings Institute report cited above, “from 2003 to 2008, state budgets for all public services – Medicaid, transportation, corrections, public assistance, and other expenditures – grew at an average rate of nearly 6 percent, but growth in state support for higher education lagged 1.5 percentage points behind.”  This translated into substantially less funding for community colleges leading to additional problems including significant cuts in amount spent per student at these schools, lack of resources for effective faculty training, and neglected maintenance projects on community college campuses. 

A recent article from Time Magazine noted that “these institutions are our nation’s trade schools, training 59% of our new nurses as well as cranking out wind-farm technicians and video-game designers – jobs that, despite the ballooning unemployment overall, abound for adequately skilled workers.”  An article on CNN.com quoted the President as saying, “’jobs requiring at least an associate degree are projected to grow twice as fast as jobs requiring no college experience.’”  Community colleges are quite appealing to many students who seek associates degrees.  The Chronicle of Higher Education reports that many community colleges are facing such overwhelming enrollment increases that some students are being turned away, unable to enroll at all. 

While visiting Macomb Community College in Warren, Michigan, President Obama outlined the specific elements that would come with the American Graduation Initiative.  Telling the crowd that “Time and again, when we placed our bet for the future on education, we have prospered as a result,” he likened the significance of the program to that of President Lincoln’s innovative land-grant program that established numerous colleges around the country and President Roosevelt’s signing of the GI Bill.  According to the president, the American Graduation Initiative “will reform and strengthen community colleges…so they get the resources that students and schools need – and the results workers and businesses demand.  Through this plan, we seek to help an additional 5 million Americans earn degrees and certificates in the next decade.”  For those perhaps concerned about the program’s impact on an already unprecedented federal deficit, President Obama added, “And let me be clear: We pay for this plan – this isn’t adding to the deficit; we’re paying for this plan – by ending the wasteful subsidies we currently provide to banks and private lenders for student loans.” 

A White House “fact sheet” on the program outlines several specific actions to be taken under the American Graduation Initiative.  To address the low completion rates found in many community colleges (the Brookings Institute notes that only one-third of community college students obtain a degree of any kind within six years of enrollment), President Obama’s plan will provide funds for community colleges that develop innovative strategies for addressing low completion rates among their students.  Additionally, funds will be earmarked for maintenance and renovation of out-dated buildings as well as for updating equipment and resources in labs and other “hands on” disciplines. 

Interesting for those in the online education community is President Obama’s plan to establish an “Online Skills Laboratory.”  “Teams of experts in content knowledge, pedagogy, and technology” will develop the courses and the Departments of Defense, Education, and Labor will work together to provide the courses online for free through one or more community colleges as well as the Defense Department’s learning network.  There has been little doubt that the Obama Administration understands the benefits of online learning; the Department of Education recently released a report that highlighted the effective and beneficial nature of online education (see my recent blog article on this topic). 

Many are touting the significance of the American Graduation Initiative.  A recent article in The Chronicle of Higher Education quotes David S. Baime, vice president for government relations at the American Association of Community Colleges (AACC), as saying, “’There’s never been a federal program anywhere close to this size targeted specifically at community colleges.’”  In an email to member presidents, Molly Corbett Broad, President of the American Council on Education (ACE), wrote, “The president should be applauded for his effort to enhance the good work being done at our nation’s community colleges.  This investment will go a long way toward meeting our nation’s work force needs at this critical time when the economy is struggling to rebound.” 

There is no doubt that America’s community colleges provide access to higher education for millions of American students and they will play an integral part in the president’s overall higher education agenda.  I have one concern regarding this program.  To the best of my knowledge, there is nothing that prohibits states from shifting money away from two year colleges to four year colleges.  If other initiatives relating to the Stimulus Act are any indication, I am concerned that this money will not prove to be incremental funding to community colleges, but instead will be a back-end subsidy of other programs inside the states most strapped for money.

Chronicle Research Services released the first of a three part report last month that describes the characteristics they predict that we will see in college graduates of the class of 2020.  The fundamental themes of the report are that as the class of 2020 (today’s first graders) enter their college years, their demands on colleges and universities will be drastically different from what students have previously expected, forcing higher educational institutions to reconsider their curriculums, formats, and basic characteristics.

Even today’s youngest students have integrated technologies into their everyday lives.  The authors, Martin Van Der Werf and Grant Sabatier, note that approximately 50 percent of middle and high school students surveyed indicated that they would use mobile devices and online technologies to communicate with classmates outside of the classroom, conduct research for projects, and engage in proactive learning strategies if provided the opportunity.  This gives credence to the notion that these students feel hindered by school systems that have not yet embraced such technologies as supplemental learning and teaching tools.

As colleges and universities struggle under burdensome economic conditions, they will be forced to find new ways of attracting students.  In addition, if these institutions are to increase enrollments, middle and high schools must address the rising drop-out rates among students at an early age.  Citing the report, “Diplomas Count: School to College: Can State P-16 Councils Ease the Transition?” the authors note that “’nearly 1.23 million members of the public high-school class of 2008 will fail to graduate with a diploma.  That amounts to a loss of 6,829 students from the U.S. graduation pipeline per day.’”  In addition to addressing the issues associated with increasing high school dropout rates, colleges and universities will be faced with the task of educating students and their parents about the means by which students can achieve college educations, both academically and financially.

The demographic makeup of the student population in the United States is continuing to change in dramatic ways.  The growing number of minority students enrolling in public middle and high schools in the United States means that colleges and universities must find more creative and compelling ways of drawing them to their institutions.  The report notes that income differences between the various minority groups will impact the college choices of students from those groups. 

Interestingly, the report contends that many students are inadequately prepared for college curriculums.  One solution to this particular problem that the report provides is developing a five year curriculum in colleges and universities with the first year being remedial and providing students with the skills to be able to successfully complete subsequent college courses.  This seems somewhat contradictory; if students are forced by tough economic times to strongly consider college costs in making their choices, adding an additional year would mean adding additional costs.  Ideally, our college schools of education should work more with local K-12 systems to provide guidance on what works best to prepare students for college while in high school.

Our definition of traditional college students is that they fall in the 18 to 24-year-old age range.  The authors note that is changing and institutions of higher education must develop ways of attracting older students if they are to succeed in the decades to come.  Van Der Werf and Sabatier write that “in 2000, 60 percent of college students were ages 18 to 24, and 21.1 percent were ages 25 to 34.  In 2016, 58.8 percent will be 18 to 24, and 24 percent will be 25 to 34.” 

The authors have provided substantial support for their claim that for-profit educational institutions are leading the charge in revamping the world of higher education to suit the needs of today’s students.  For example, they contend that “computers will be even more central to the educations of younger students now rising through elementary and high schools.”  They cite the findings of the “Speak Up 2008” report published by Project Tomorrow which conclude that today’s K-12 students are “’in fact a ‘Digital Advance Team’ illuminating the path for how to leverage emerging technologies effectively for teaching and learning.’”  According to the report, for-profit institutions are far more likely to provide distance education courses to students, allowing flexibility for students to pursue careers, families, and other opportunities while continuing their educations.  Thanks to this flexibility, for-profit institutions are able to attract students older than the traditional college student, benefitting from the fact that more adults are returning to college to supplement their skills in order to advance their careers in an increasingly competitive job market. 

Data cited in the report indicates that between 2000 and 2007, “enrollment in distance-education courses nearly quadrupled, from 3,077,000 to 12,153,000.”  Arguably more “nimble” than their non-profit counterparts, for-profit institutions have managed to develop a market niche in the higher education industry that has allowed for their overwhelming growth in enrollments.  Whereas more traditional institutions struggle to integrate new and existing technologies in the classroom, technologies that students are already and will increasingly expect and demand, the for-profit educational sector has responded more quickly with the implementation of innovative and modern technology in the classroom.  Citing a 2008 paper published by Harvard Business School professor (and, author of Disrupting Class), Clayton M. Christensen, the report states that “by 2019 half of courses in Grades 9 to 12 will be delivered online.” 

K-12 students in many states are already enjoying the benefits afforded by online education.  The Florida Virtual School, for example, enrolled some 63,000 Florida students for the 2007-08 school year.  According to Van Der Werf and Sabatier, “all 16 states represented by the Southern Regional Education Board now have a virtual public school at some stage of development.” 

Undoubtedly, the most elite schools in America will continue to attract significant numbers of applicants; they have successfully developed a brand and reputation that will allow them to weather the current financial storm.  For-profit colleges will also remain strong in the face of economic uncertainty and will surely gain in popularity.  Other colleges and universities, however, particularly those without well-known names and brand recognition, will struggle to attract students who will continue to make demands for innovative uses of technologies and flexibility in learning formats as they make their choices in which colleges to attend. 

While some of these publications are available to the public, the report was a worthwhile purchase in that it provided greater focus to the issue of what to do to prepare for future college students.  Indeed, as described in a May 31 article in The Boston Globe, the “traditional” college path is no longer the norm.  Four-year graduation rates are mythical, according to Neil Swidley, author of the article.  At the most elite private schools, four-year degree completion rates remain steady.  At other schools, however, the four-year degree is quickly turning into six years or even longer.  According to Swidley’s article, the number of adults who took the “’traditional’” path through college, receiving their bachelors degrees within four years, is less than ten percent, based on data from 2005.  In short, the definition of “traditional” is changing both in the way we characterize students and in the path we expect them to take to earning their degrees.  If higher education is to meet President Obama’s goal of bringing America back to its preeminent position as a global leader in college graduation rates, the industry as a whole must realize that fact.

I make no claims to being a writer, professional or amateur.  I do not publish academic research at the present time.  However, I have enjoyed reading since the beginning (first grade for me), and the enjoyment of reading has given me an appreciation for the quality of writing.

During my elementary and secondary years, I benefited by having dedicated teachers who guided the development of my writing through the typical structural development prescribed in the 1960’s and 1970’s.  By the time I reached high school, we focused less on the structure of a sentence (no more sentence diagramming) and more on the prose itself.  As a precursor to college, my high school classmates and I were given a copy of The Elements of Style by William Strunk and E.B. White and were told that everything we ever wanted to know about good writing was contained in that book (William Strunk was a professor at Cornell University who began his guide for writing in 1918 and E.B. White was an editor at the New Yorker who studied under Strunk.  White revised Strunk’s guide in 1958).

As a freshman at Duke University in 1972, I suffered through the standard required English composition class in which little guidance was given about how to write other than analyzing the literary context of the novel and writing argumentatively.  The course was graded on a C curve and those of us who achieved an A or B were grateful that we did not receive a C and were perplexed given the limited opportunity to receive personal advice about our writing.  When I decided to be a liberal arts major, most of my subsequent courses required writing papers and making educated arguments about the assigned readings.  Education about writing had ceased with English composition.  It was expected that your writing would improve as you continued to progress (and write) in your upper level liberal arts classes.

When I attended graduate business school at Tulane, there was little room for the type and style of writing embraced in history, philosophy, and English classes.  Analysis was best when it was brief and to-the-point.  That same style of brevity was important for writing memos throughout much of my business career.

After a long respite from being a student, I entered a doctoral program at the University of Pennsylvania.  One of our professors recommended that we read a book entitled Bird by Bird: Some Instructions on Writing and Life by Anne Lamott.  Lamott’s lessons are less about the techniques of writing and more about the importance of writing often, in essence practicing and perfecting the art of writing.  The title of her book stems from an incident in her childhood when her brother complained that he did not know where and how to start a paper about birds.  Her father, a writer, instructed her brother to write about the birds, “bird by bird.”

I shared my thoughts about Bird by Bird with a friend of mine who teaches English composition in high school.  He recommended Stephen King’s On Writing: A Memoir of the Craft.  Roughly two-thirds of the book is autobiographical, but the middle section provides some good tips on writing.

While Bird by Bird and On Writing provide coaching tips and ideas, they are not as instructional as The Elements of Style.  I agree with King’s and Lamott’s advice that the more you write, the easier it will be to write.  That does not necessarily mean that the writing will be better.  Few writers are gifted enough to write a flawless novel or article at one sitting.  I review and edit until I am comfortable with the flow of the document.  In some cases, I ask someone to review it and provide me with edits or comments.

Alex Reid, the author of The Two Virtuals: New Media and Composition, recently commented on his blog, Digital Digs, that “The more we write and the greater variety of genres in which we write, the better prepared we will be to write in a variety of genres in the future.”  Reid’s post is a response to an article by Josh Keller in The Chronicle of Higher Education in which Keller reports about longitudinal studies at Stanford and Michigan State that explore whether the internet makes students better writers.  Reid bills himself as an academic writer, and his conclusion is similar to the tips from Lamott and King who are professional writers.  Reid not only comments about the importance of writing frequently, but also about the importance of writing frequently in multiple genres.

Whether writing at work, at school, or on the internet, I agree that the frequency of writing should improve the quality of your written output.  Constructive criticism from bosses, professors, or friends is helpful as well.  If you feel uninspired during your next effort at writing, read Bird by Bird or On Writing.  Good luck and good writing!

In a typical year, the federal government contributes approximately $20 billion to higher education and the states contribute about $80 billion. At the state level, funding for higher education is behind mandated priorities such as K-12 education and Medicaid.  Many governors and legislatures have relied on the public’s willingness to bear tuition increases and in times of budgetary crisis, have pared back funding to higher education assuming that the colleges can increase tuition to offset the state funding cuts.  Given the fall in real estate values and real estate foreclosures, the unprecedented level of job layoffs at companies reacting to the economic downturn, the lower income taxes paid by fewer people working, lower sales taxes paid by people forced to pare back on their discretionary expenditures; it is inevitable that most of the state budgets have to be reduced this year and next.  Some states like Maryland are using some of the stimulus funds to delay cuts to education.  Other states are unable to use stimulus funds to absorb all of the declines in tax revenues and are cutting higher education before K-12.  Among the more notable state cuts that I have read about include:

• Tennessee – $180 million in cuts over two years
• North Carolina – $175 million in cuts this year and $191 million next year
• Washington – $500 million in cuts
• Arizona – $388 million in cuts
• California – $1.1 billion in cuts
• Louisiana – $219 million in cuts

Public institutions are not the only ones tightening their belts.  Faced with endowment values that have plummeted due to the global stock markets declining in value by as much as 40 percent, private universities have implemented staff reduction plans as well.  The most notable of these was the plan that Harvard announced in February.  Most private institutions are not as financially secure as Harvard, and many have announced staff reductions, wage freezes, hiring freezes, etc., in order to prepare for reduced earnings on their endowment as well as lower charitable contributions. 

Meanwhile, families who find their college savings investments diminished by 40 percent or more due to lower stock values and interest rates are encouraging their children to apply to public four year and two year colleges resulting in higher application levels with fewer available spaces.  Several state institutions have announced that they will admit more out-of-state students in 2009-2010 in order to increase the tuition revenues paid to the institution.  The FAFSA applications for financial aid are up 20 percent over a year ago through February according to the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators.  The Princeton Review released a survey last week of parents and students and the number who are considering a more affordable school have increased by more than a third.  Because of these concerns of families about affordability, several private institutions have announced that they have admitted more applicants than usual as they are hedging their bets on whether or not students choose to attend more reasonably priced public institutions next year.

All of this points to a crisis in the funding of higher education.  The Spellings Commission, the Measuring Up reports, and numerous papers published by other policy commissions indicate that America has fallen behind on the percentage of working adults who hold a college degree and that America will need an additional 15-16 million more college degree holders by 2025 in order to meet President Obama’s goal of returning America to its position of pre-eminence in the percentage of adults with college degrees.  The Measuring Up 2008 report indicates that a college education is unaffordable for those in the lowest quintiles of household income.  Other data indicates that the lower income population of the United States is not successful in completing or even attending college.  Affordability and access were two of the four tenets of the Spellings Commission.  The National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education measures preparation, participation, affordability, completion, benefits, and learning for each of the states in their Measuring Up reports.  Unfortunately, California is the only state with a passing grade on affordability.

In the last 50 years, states have funded the majority of the costs of higher education.  Given the importance of an educated citizenry in our quest for global competitiveness in the 21st century, we need to examine whether or not the current system is working.  Increasing the amount of Pell Grants available to low income students will not solve this problem.  If the President were to create a National Commission on the Future of Higher Education that could bring together representatives of students and families, policy organizations, the state governors and legislatures, and Congress, a meaningful dialogue could be established to address the most fundamental obstacles to the future of higher education.  The problems are systemic, the solution is not nigh, and many different factions have to align.  The major higher education initiatives at the federal level; the Morrill Land Grant Act of 1862, the G.I. Bill of 1944, and the National Defense Education Act of 1958; spurred higher education and the country to action.  Perhaps President Obama’s stimulus package and its shortcomings in relation to higher education, and the economic crisis facing higher education and our nation, will be the impetus for another call to action.