Can you believe it? In 2015, we are still seeing racism on college campuses. One would assume that students who attend college come from the more educated middle or upper classes and; therefore, are more open to people of other races.
That certainly is not the case at the University of Oklahoma, where a racist video surfaced last week. Members of the Sigma Alpha Epsilon fraternity can be seen singing a song to the tune of “If You’re Happy and You Know It”, vowing never to have black students in their fraternity, using racial slurs like the “N” word, and talk about lynching them from a tree (Chronicle of Higher Education, March 11, 2015). This is absolutely despicable.
University of Oklahoma David Boren responded quickly by suspending the fraternity and expelled two students who lead the song once they were identified in the video. He called the students “disgraceful” and said he hoped the students would leave town, offering to buy them a one way ticket out of town. It should be noted that the national office of Sigma Alpha Epsilon fraternity also suspended the chapter at Oklahoma. I applaud President Boren for his fast and decisive action. In my opinion, he did the right thing.
However, President Boren’s decisions are now being called into question. Did he act too quickly without having all of the facts? Is the fraternity students’ song considered free speech? Did he deny the students who were expelled their due process rights? Legal experts are now suggesting that Boren went too far and will open the university to legal challenges.
What is typical in situations like this, once the attorneys have been consulted, is for the president to issue a very carefully worded and legalistic statement about the inappropriateness of the incident in question, state that an investigation will ensue, how students involved will be given their due process rights, and if the evidence suggests campus rules have been violated, the appropriate actions will be taken based on the student code of conduct and the student handbook, the rules and regulations for students.
Too often, our decisions as university presidents are greatly influenced by university attorneys because we don’t want to subject the university to more lawsuits. Case in point is the recent incident at the Pennsylvania State University where members of the Kappa Delta Rho fraternity posted pictures of nude and unconscious female students on a secret Facebook where only members of the fraternity had access. The Facebook page also included pictures of drug sales and hazing. In response, Penn State University President Eric Barron stated that “an investigation was underway, the university has its own judicial process for student conduct which will be followed, we want to make sure we do this right, we are committed to due process, that the right people are brought to justice, and anybody who is responsible for that type of truly offensive behavior is punished” (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/penn-state-vows-punish-those-behind-kappa-delta-rho-page-n326031). It’s clearly, a very measured response that was most likely influenced by legal counsel.
It should be noted that the female students in the pictures did not consent to having their pictures taken much less posted on a Facebook page. Officials at both Penn State and the fraternity headquarters have suspended the Kappa Delta Rho chapter.
Are Oklahoma and Penn State isolated incidences? Clearly not. The national office of Sigma Alpha Epsilon is investigating two of its other chapters for alleged displays of racism, at Louisiana Tech University and the University of Texas at Austin. The University of Washington is also investigating claims that members of the Sigma Alpha Epsilon fraternity shouted racist comments at black students participating in a march protesting violence against blacks last month as they passed the fraternity’s house. The University of Maryland at College Park is investigating a racist and sexist email allegedly sent in January of 2014 by a member of the Kappa Sigma fraternity. However, it recently came to light when it was published online (Chronicle of Higher Education, March 13, 2015).
Colleges and universities across the nation should use these situations as a way to discuss racism in our country. Faculty on campuses across America should use what happened at the University of Oklahoma or other universities to teach students to explore their beliefs and be more tolerant of other races different from their own. These are typically called “teach-ins” and can be very useful to examine subjects that can be very controversial. After all, isn’t that what universities are all about? Educating and providing young men and women with information that can help them be more enlightened and become more informed members of our society, should be the mission of all universities.
Racism on college campuses will not end after the University of Oklahoma or Pennsylvania State University incidents. However, we must send the clear message that racism will not be tolerated on our college campuses. We must continue to issue appropriate punishment for these despicable acts. This won’t eliminate racism in American, but it will certainly send the message that racism has no place in higher education.
Showing posts with label minority students. Show all posts
Showing posts with label minority students. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 25, 2015
Monday, March 9, 2015
Increasing Graduation Rates at Community Colleges
Last week, MDRC released a report on the evaluation of the Accelerated Study in Associate Programs or ASAP as it is known. The program nearly doubled the three-year graduation rates of community college students who started in remedial classes. This is impressive given that graduation rates of community college students are extremely low. According to the National Center for Educational Statistics, only 20% of the students who enter public community colleges complete a certificate or associate degree in three years (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cva.asp).
ASAP is a comprehensive, long-term program designed to increase the success and ultimately the graduation rates of community college students. The Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation (MDRC), was created in 1974 by the Ford Foundation and a group of federal agencies. It is a nonprofit, nonpartisan education and social policy research organization dedicated to learning what works to improve programs and policies that affect the poor (http://www.mdrc.org/about/about-mdrc-history).
ASAP was created by the City University of New York (CUNY) system office and implemented in 2007 with funding from the New York City Center for Economic Opportunity at Borough of Manhattan Community College, Kingsborough Community College, and LaGuardia Community College. In 2009 CUNY system leaders approached MDRC about evaluating the program and they accepted.
The program has four major components that provide structure and support for up to three years and is designed to address multiple potential barriers to student success in community colleges. First, the program requires students to attend college full-time, are encouraged to take developmental courses early, and to graduate within three years. This is important because it sets high standards by issuing requirements, and it sends the right message about getting done on time if not earlier. Second, it has a student services component, which requires students to receive comprehensive advisement from an ASAP-dedicated adviser with a small caseload. Students also receive career information from an ASAP-dedicated career and employment services staff member, and extensive tutoring from ASAP-dedicated staff. The third component requires students to enroll in blocked or linked courses in their first year. The blocked courses consist of two or more courses grouped together with seats reserved for ASAP students. Students are also required to enroll in an ASAP seminar during their first few semesters covering topics such as setting goals and study skills. The fourth has a financial support component where students receive a tuition waiver that covers any gaps between financial aid and college tuition and fees. Students also receive free MetroCards for use on public transportation, contingent on participation in key program services, and free use of textbooks.
According to the report, the ASAP program costs $16,300 per student, which is 63% more than what CUNY spent per student on usual college services. The report goes on to assert that the cost was actually lower because ASAP generated so many more graduates over the three-year follow-up period than did the usual college services.
In the study, MDRC used a random assignment research design to evaluate the impact of ASAP intervention strategies on students’ academic outcomes over a three-year study period compared to students who received the usual services and courses at the colleges. The study targeted students who met the following eligibility criteria at the point of random assignment: had family income below 200% of the federal poverty level or were eligible for a Pell Grant (or both); needed one or two developmental courses to build math, reading, or writing skills; had previously earned 12 credits or fewer; were New York City residents; were willing to attend college full time; and were in an ASAP eligible major (http://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/doubling_graduation_rates_es.pdf). Eligible students who agreed to participate were randomly assigned to either the program group (typically called the experimental group), students who had the opportunity to receive the intervention strategies or services offered by ASAP, or to the control group, students who received the usual college services with no intervention strategies or special services.
The sample consisted of 896 students who completed a Baseline Information Form (BIF) to determine if they met the eligibility criteria listed above. Roughly two-thirds of the students in the research sample were women and most were relatively young. Seventy-seven percent (77%) were 22 years of age or younger when they entered the study. The study sample was racially diverse and reflected the collective student body at the three community colleges, which no racial majority. The majority of students sampled lived with their parents, were unmarried, and did not have children.
The results of the study suggest that 40% of students in the ASAP program graduated in three years compared to 22% in the control group or those students receiving no intervention strategies. Additionally, ASAP students completed an average of 48 credit hours compared to 39 credit hours by the control group. Finally, 25% of the ASAP students enrolled in a four-year university compared to 17% in the control group.
A detailed, in depth analysis of the services offered by ASAP provides revealing information that could explain why students in the program were found to be more successful. ASAP students were required to enroll full-time, take remedial courses early, and strongly encouraged to graduate in three years. ASAP students were advised by an academic advisor with a student-advisor load of 60:1 or 80:1, 95% of these students met on average 38 times with their advisors in the first year. Compared to non-ASAP students who had advisors with a student-advisor load of 600:1 and 1500:1, 80% of those students met on average six times. With regard to tutoring, 74% of ASAP students received tutoring outside of class and met with a tutor an average of 24 times during first year. Compared to non-ASAP, 39% of those students who received tutoring outside of class and met with a tutor an average of seven times in the same period. Eighty percent (80%) of ASAP students met on average of nine times with career and employment services staff during the first year compared to 29% of non-ASAP students who met on average two times with career and employment services staff during first year
While blocked or linked courses were offered to ASAP students, few took a complete block of courses; however, most of these students took an ASAP seminar course for three semesters compared to non-ASAP students whose block course enrollment was not tracked and some of these students took a freshman seminar or student success course in their first year. Finally, 3% to 11% of the ASAP students received tuition waivers, all ASAP students received free MetroCards for use on public transportation, contingent upon participating in ASAP and all ASAP student received free use of textbooks. None of these services were provided to non-ASAP students.
Two-tailed t-tests were conducted on the percent of ASAP students enrolled each semester over the three-year period compared to non-ASAP student enrollments and the differences were statistically significant in the first two years, but not in the third year. This is essentially a statistical test to determine if there is a statistically significant difference between the experimental group (ASAP students) versus the control group (non-ASAP students) T-tests were also conducted on the differences between the percent of students who graduated in the ASAP group versus the non-ASAP group, credit hours earned between the two groups, and the percent of student who went on to a four-year college after three years in the community college and each was highly statistically significant. However, recall that two-thirds of the students in the sample were women, which could account for a higher success rates. Numerous research studies, including my own research, have demonstrated that women tend to do better in college than men. Also, additional higher order statistical analyses such as predictive statistics, like regression analysis, were not employed. It would have been informative to understand, via regression analysis, if there is a casual relationship between the intervention strategies and student outcomes. In other words, did the ASAP services cause students to be more successful in the community colleges? However, it should be pointed out that social science research is not perfect.
It makes sense that with this much attention paid and the large number of support services offered to ASAP students, it is only logical that these students would do better and thus succeed at higher rates compared to typical community college students. My own experiences in developing student recruitment and retention programs, provides further evidence that programs which offer these many services and pay this much attention to students do, in fact, increase student success. Early in my career, I developed a student support program with many of the same intervention strategies offered in the ASAP program and other strategies such as shadow courses. I didn’t include blocked courses initially; although, in later programs I developed and did experiment with blocked courses. I offered scholarships from money I had raised and used it with other forms of financial aid to provide a free college education to the participants. However, participants had to participate in all of the services offered by the program in order to receive the scholarship. Students were monitored weekly and scholarship money was distributed monthly, based on participation in the program. Student success in the program increased dramatically.
These results are also consistent with the prevailing theory on college student retention. In 1975, Dr. Vincent Tinto posited the landmark theory of student integration, commonly known as the student integration model. Dr. Tinto’s theory of student integration was the basis for thousands of studies and became the most widely studied and empirically tested theory in higher education. While these studies attacked and supported the student integration model, over time Dr. Tinto revised his theory several times. Essentially, Dr. Tinto theorized that if college students integrate academically and socially they will tend to stay in college, be successful and graduate. Conversely, if students don’t “connect” academically and socially with the college or university they tend to drop out.
According to the Chronicle of Higher Education (February 26, 2015), ASAP has gained nationwide attention. Donna Linderman, who oversees the ASAP program at CUNY, said her office had been "bombarded with requests for information from all over the country." The good news is that CUNY and MDRC are working to replicate the program in other parts of the country, starting with three two-year colleges in Ohio. All states should take heed and provide the money to replicate this program in a small sample of community colleges. If the program works, then it should be implemented at all community colleges. Nearly half of all college students are enrolled in community colleges, 50% are Hispanic, 31% are African American and 44% are low-income, according to the Community College Research Center (http://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/Community-College-FAQs.html). Imagine the positive impact that doubling the graduation rates of community college students would have on our country and the impact it would have on the lives of minority, low-income community college students.
ASAP is a comprehensive, long-term program designed to increase the success and ultimately the graduation rates of community college students. The Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation (MDRC), was created in 1974 by the Ford Foundation and a group of federal agencies. It is a nonprofit, nonpartisan education and social policy research organization dedicated to learning what works to improve programs and policies that affect the poor (http://www.mdrc.org/about/about-mdrc-history).
ASAP was created by the City University of New York (CUNY) system office and implemented in 2007 with funding from the New York City Center for Economic Opportunity at Borough of Manhattan Community College, Kingsborough Community College, and LaGuardia Community College. In 2009 CUNY system leaders approached MDRC about evaluating the program and they accepted.
The program has four major components that provide structure and support for up to three years and is designed to address multiple potential barriers to student success in community colleges. First, the program requires students to attend college full-time, are encouraged to take developmental courses early, and to graduate within three years. This is important because it sets high standards by issuing requirements, and it sends the right message about getting done on time if not earlier. Second, it has a student services component, which requires students to receive comprehensive advisement from an ASAP-dedicated adviser with a small caseload. Students also receive career information from an ASAP-dedicated career and employment services staff member, and extensive tutoring from ASAP-dedicated staff. The third component requires students to enroll in blocked or linked courses in their first year. The blocked courses consist of two or more courses grouped together with seats reserved for ASAP students. Students are also required to enroll in an ASAP seminar during their first few semesters covering topics such as setting goals and study skills. The fourth has a financial support component where students receive a tuition waiver that covers any gaps between financial aid and college tuition and fees. Students also receive free MetroCards for use on public transportation, contingent on participation in key program services, and free use of textbooks.
According to the report, the ASAP program costs $16,300 per student, which is 63% more than what CUNY spent per student on usual college services. The report goes on to assert that the cost was actually lower because ASAP generated so many more graduates over the three-year follow-up period than did the usual college services.
In the study, MDRC used a random assignment research design to evaluate the impact of ASAP intervention strategies on students’ academic outcomes over a three-year study period compared to students who received the usual services and courses at the colleges. The study targeted students who met the following eligibility criteria at the point of random assignment: had family income below 200% of the federal poverty level or were eligible for a Pell Grant (or both); needed one or two developmental courses to build math, reading, or writing skills; had previously earned 12 credits or fewer; were New York City residents; were willing to attend college full time; and were in an ASAP eligible major (http://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/doubling_graduation_rates_es.pdf). Eligible students who agreed to participate were randomly assigned to either the program group (typically called the experimental group), students who had the opportunity to receive the intervention strategies or services offered by ASAP, or to the control group, students who received the usual college services with no intervention strategies or special services.
The sample consisted of 896 students who completed a Baseline Information Form (BIF) to determine if they met the eligibility criteria listed above. Roughly two-thirds of the students in the research sample were women and most were relatively young. Seventy-seven percent (77%) were 22 years of age or younger when they entered the study. The study sample was racially diverse and reflected the collective student body at the three community colleges, which no racial majority. The majority of students sampled lived with their parents, were unmarried, and did not have children.
The results of the study suggest that 40% of students in the ASAP program graduated in three years compared to 22% in the control group or those students receiving no intervention strategies. Additionally, ASAP students completed an average of 48 credit hours compared to 39 credit hours by the control group. Finally, 25% of the ASAP students enrolled in a four-year university compared to 17% in the control group.
A detailed, in depth analysis of the services offered by ASAP provides revealing information that could explain why students in the program were found to be more successful. ASAP students were required to enroll full-time, take remedial courses early, and strongly encouraged to graduate in three years. ASAP students were advised by an academic advisor with a student-advisor load of 60:1 or 80:1, 95% of these students met on average 38 times with their advisors in the first year. Compared to non-ASAP students who had advisors with a student-advisor load of 600:1 and 1500:1, 80% of those students met on average six times. With regard to tutoring, 74% of ASAP students received tutoring outside of class and met with a tutor an average of 24 times during first year. Compared to non-ASAP, 39% of those students who received tutoring outside of class and met with a tutor an average of seven times in the same period. Eighty percent (80%) of ASAP students met on average of nine times with career and employment services staff during the first year compared to 29% of non-ASAP students who met on average two times with career and employment services staff during first year
While blocked or linked courses were offered to ASAP students, few took a complete block of courses; however, most of these students took an ASAP seminar course for three semesters compared to non-ASAP students whose block course enrollment was not tracked and some of these students took a freshman seminar or student success course in their first year. Finally, 3% to 11% of the ASAP students received tuition waivers, all ASAP students received free MetroCards for use on public transportation, contingent upon participating in ASAP and all ASAP student received free use of textbooks. None of these services were provided to non-ASAP students.
Two-tailed t-tests were conducted on the percent of ASAP students enrolled each semester over the three-year period compared to non-ASAP student enrollments and the differences were statistically significant in the first two years, but not in the third year. This is essentially a statistical test to determine if there is a statistically significant difference between the experimental group (ASAP students) versus the control group (non-ASAP students) T-tests were also conducted on the differences between the percent of students who graduated in the ASAP group versus the non-ASAP group, credit hours earned between the two groups, and the percent of student who went on to a four-year college after three years in the community college and each was highly statistically significant. However, recall that two-thirds of the students in the sample were women, which could account for a higher success rates. Numerous research studies, including my own research, have demonstrated that women tend to do better in college than men. Also, additional higher order statistical analyses such as predictive statistics, like regression analysis, were not employed. It would have been informative to understand, via regression analysis, if there is a casual relationship between the intervention strategies and student outcomes. In other words, did the ASAP services cause students to be more successful in the community colleges? However, it should be pointed out that social science research is not perfect.
It makes sense that with this much attention paid and the large number of support services offered to ASAP students, it is only logical that these students would do better and thus succeed at higher rates compared to typical community college students. My own experiences in developing student recruitment and retention programs, provides further evidence that programs which offer these many services and pay this much attention to students do, in fact, increase student success. Early in my career, I developed a student support program with many of the same intervention strategies offered in the ASAP program and other strategies such as shadow courses. I didn’t include blocked courses initially; although, in later programs I developed and did experiment with blocked courses. I offered scholarships from money I had raised and used it with other forms of financial aid to provide a free college education to the participants. However, participants had to participate in all of the services offered by the program in order to receive the scholarship. Students were monitored weekly and scholarship money was distributed monthly, based on participation in the program. Student success in the program increased dramatically.
These results are also consistent with the prevailing theory on college student retention. In 1975, Dr. Vincent Tinto posited the landmark theory of student integration, commonly known as the student integration model. Dr. Tinto’s theory of student integration was the basis for thousands of studies and became the most widely studied and empirically tested theory in higher education. While these studies attacked and supported the student integration model, over time Dr. Tinto revised his theory several times. Essentially, Dr. Tinto theorized that if college students integrate academically and socially they will tend to stay in college, be successful and graduate. Conversely, if students don’t “connect” academically and socially with the college or university they tend to drop out.
According to the Chronicle of Higher Education (February 26, 2015), ASAP has gained nationwide attention. Donna Linderman, who oversees the ASAP program at CUNY, said her office had been "bombarded with requests for information from all over the country." The good news is that CUNY and MDRC are working to replicate the program in other parts of the country, starting with three two-year colleges in Ohio. All states should take heed and provide the money to replicate this program in a small sample of community colleges. If the program works, then it should be implemented at all community colleges. Nearly half of all college students are enrolled in community colleges, 50% are Hispanic, 31% are African American and 44% are low-income, according to the Community College Research Center (http://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/Community-College-FAQs.html). Imagine the positive impact that doubling the graduation rates of community college students would have on our country and the impact it would have on the lives of minority, low-income community college students.
Wednesday, October 1, 2014
College Student Loan Default Rates:A Measure of Success of Colleges?
Recently, more criticism is being leveled at colleges and universities for not being more successful at “producing” students. Higher education is being treated like any other business by focusing now on measuring output. Specifically, lawmakers and the public want to know how many students each institution of higher education they advance from one year to the next and ultimately how many they graduate. One measure of that success that has been in the public eye is the college student loan default rate.
The U.S. Department of Education announced this week that loan-default rates had dropped one percent from 14.7% to 13.7% of all colleges and universities in 2011 compared to 2010. The Department of Education looks at individual colleges and places them in categories such as public vs. private, two-year vs. four-year, and non-profit vs. for-profit. The largest drop occurred in the private for-profit sector by 2.7%, even though they continue to have the highest loan default rate of all colleges at 19.1%. The second highest default rate was among public colleges at 12.9%, and the private non-profit colleges had the lowest at 7.2%. In examining the data more closely, the two-year private non- and for-profit colleges had significantly higher default rates (25.0% and 20.6% respectively) than the two-year publics (13.6%). The private for-profit four-year colleges had the highest default rate (18.6%), the public colleges had the next highest (8.9%) and the private non-profits had the lowest rates (7.0%).
Despite the drop in default rates, the major concern among critics of colleges is that the Department of Education lowered its standards and is letting underperforming colleges “off the hook.” However, college administrators point to the weak economy as a major cause of higher loan default rates. The weak economy has caused more student to borrow money to attend college, which in turn has caused the loan default rate to increase.
Last year, the Department changed its standards, so rather than measuring default rates for two years, they are now using three years. And the default rate must not exceed 30% of the total number of student loans for three years in a row or 40% in a single year. Another interesting, but controversial, change the Department made was to exclude in its calculations multiple loans whether students were in “repayment, deferment, or forbearance status for at least 60 consecutive days,” based on a statement issued by Jeff Baker, Director, Policy Liaison and Implementation, Federal Student Aid, U.S. Department of Education.
The penalty for not meeting the standards is the potential loss of federal student aid and possibly other federal funding. This is a major concern about administrators at colleges as federal student aid funds can be a significant part of the budget of many colleges especially at the private for-profits. Moreover, administrators in community colleges and minority serving institutions expressed the greatest concern since they typically enroll a significantly larger number of first-generation, low-income students. These are the students who rely heavily on loans and other types of financial aid since their parents can’t afford to pay for college.
In a speech this week, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan told leaders of historically black colleges and universities that none of their institutions would be penalized. This was welcome news for them and for college administrators at other minority-serving institutions and community colleges.
However, should minority-serving institutions and community colleges be penalized because they serve a disproportionately larger share of low-income students? I don’t think so, if anything these colleges should be rewarded for taking on a very difficult task. But, in an environment where legislators and the public are calling for more accountability and where colleges and universities are now being treated like a business that produces a product, I don’t think these institutions of higher education will be rewarded. My guess is that we will see more pressure on these types of colleges to do a better job or close their doors.
On the other hand, it is not clear to me that state legislators will have the intestinal fortitude in the future to close public community colleges and minority-serving institutions in their legislative districts. After all, institutions of higher education are economic engines for the communities they reside in. They tend to hire a large number of employees and a subset of their employees (professors and administrators) earn significantly higher wages than the average wage earner in those communities. Additionally, these colleges and universities are educating the future workforce of our country: the first-generation, low-income, minority and immigrant population that is increasing exponentially in this country. I suspect that if a legislator proposed or voted to close an institution of higher education in his or her community, they would not remain a legislator through the next election.
Secretary Duncan took a bold and brave step, in my opinion, in adjusting the default rates of community colleges and minority serving institutions. Our country needs these types of institutions of higher education to not only survive, but thrive. After all, they play an important role in shaping the future of our country by educating a significant subgroup of our workforce and our future leaders.
The U.S. Department of Education announced this week that loan-default rates had dropped one percent from 14.7% to 13.7% of all colleges and universities in 2011 compared to 2010. The Department of Education looks at individual colleges and places them in categories such as public vs. private, two-year vs. four-year, and non-profit vs. for-profit. The largest drop occurred in the private for-profit sector by 2.7%, even though they continue to have the highest loan default rate of all colleges at 19.1%. The second highest default rate was among public colleges at 12.9%, and the private non-profit colleges had the lowest at 7.2%. In examining the data more closely, the two-year private non- and for-profit colleges had significantly higher default rates (25.0% and 20.6% respectively) than the two-year publics (13.6%). The private for-profit four-year colleges had the highest default rate (18.6%), the public colleges had the next highest (8.9%) and the private non-profits had the lowest rates (7.0%).
Despite the drop in default rates, the major concern among critics of colleges is that the Department of Education lowered its standards and is letting underperforming colleges “off the hook.” However, college administrators point to the weak economy as a major cause of higher loan default rates. The weak economy has caused more student to borrow money to attend college, which in turn has caused the loan default rate to increase.
Last year, the Department changed its standards, so rather than measuring default rates for two years, they are now using three years. And the default rate must not exceed 30% of the total number of student loans for three years in a row or 40% in a single year. Another interesting, but controversial, change the Department made was to exclude in its calculations multiple loans whether students were in “repayment, deferment, or forbearance status for at least 60 consecutive days,” based on a statement issued by Jeff Baker, Director, Policy Liaison and Implementation, Federal Student Aid, U.S. Department of Education.
The penalty for not meeting the standards is the potential loss of federal student aid and possibly other federal funding. This is a major concern about administrators at colleges as federal student aid funds can be a significant part of the budget of many colleges especially at the private for-profits. Moreover, administrators in community colleges and minority serving institutions expressed the greatest concern since they typically enroll a significantly larger number of first-generation, low-income students. These are the students who rely heavily on loans and other types of financial aid since their parents can’t afford to pay for college.
In a speech this week, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan told leaders of historically black colleges and universities that none of their institutions would be penalized. This was welcome news for them and for college administrators at other minority-serving institutions and community colleges.
However, should minority-serving institutions and community colleges be penalized because they serve a disproportionately larger share of low-income students? I don’t think so, if anything these colleges should be rewarded for taking on a very difficult task. But, in an environment where legislators and the public are calling for more accountability and where colleges and universities are now being treated like a business that produces a product, I don’t think these institutions of higher education will be rewarded. My guess is that we will see more pressure on these types of colleges to do a better job or close their doors.
On the other hand, it is not clear to me that state legislators will have the intestinal fortitude in the future to close public community colleges and minority-serving institutions in their legislative districts. After all, institutions of higher education are economic engines for the communities they reside in. They tend to hire a large number of employees and a subset of their employees (professors and administrators) earn significantly higher wages than the average wage earner in those communities. Additionally, these colleges and universities are educating the future workforce of our country: the first-generation, low-income, minority and immigrant population that is increasing exponentially in this country. I suspect that if a legislator proposed or voted to close an institution of higher education in his or her community, they would not remain a legislator through the next election.
Secretary Duncan took a bold and brave step, in my opinion, in adjusting the default rates of community colleges and minority serving institutions. Our country needs these types of institutions of higher education to not only survive, but thrive. After all, they play an important role in shaping the future of our country by educating a significant subgroup of our workforce and our future leaders.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)