Friday, March 16, 2007
More on GWU's Anti-Charter Discrimination
Andy is righteously indignant that the George Washington University's Trachtenberg Scholarship, which provides four-year full scholarships to graduates of D.C. public high schools, excludes students who graduate from D.C.'s public charter schools. But it's even more ridiculous than that: The kids who got Trachtenberg scholarships this year hail from 4 D.C. schools: School Without Walls, Banneker, Duke Ellington, and Woodrow Wilson. Three of those schools--SWW, Banneker, and Ellington--are competitive admissions schools that accept students based on past academic performance, test scores, interviews, and, in the case of Ellington, performing arts auditions. They are NOT your typical D.C. Public School. In contrast, D.C.'s charter schools are required to take all comers, regardless of prior perfromance, and must select students with a lottery if they are oversubscribed.
Cuomo finds "uholy alliances"
Yesterday, New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo announced that there might just be something to all those allegations of “kickbacks” and “unholy alliances” between lenders and financial aid offices—alliances that in the end benefit colleges and lenders more than students.
- Lenders pay financial kickbacks to schools based on a percentage of the loans that are directed to the lenders. The kickbacks are designed to be larger if a school directs more student loans to the lender. And the kickbacks are even greater if the schools make the lender their “exclusive” preferred lender.
- Lenders pay for all-expense-paid trips for financial aid officers (and their spouses) to high-end resorts like
- Lenders set up funds and credit lines for schools to use in exchange for schools putting the lenders on their preferred lender lists.
- Lenders offer large payments to schools to drop out of the direct federal loan program so that the lenders get more business.
- Lenders set up call centers for schools. When students call the schools’ financial aid centers, they actually get representatives of the lenders.
- Lenders on preferred lender lists agree to sell loans to a single lender so there is actually no real choice for the student.
- Lenders sell loans to other lenders, often wiping out the back-end benefits originally promised to the students without the students ever knowing.
While there will be some out there who charge that Cuomo is looking to pad his political resume (it can’t be easy following Spitzer) by taking down the student loan industry, the whisperings of these problems existed well before he took office. Cuomo’s investigation should provide answers to some important questions in a debate that has been dominated for too long by accusations and invective—questions like which practices are most common and which schools and lenders are involved. These answers will help to determine if this is a widespread problem requiring industry-wide regulation or a problem of isolated cases that calls for better enforcement of existing rules.
Thursday, March 15, 2007
New Dream Act
New version of the DREAM- Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors- Act was introduced in the Senate last week by Sen Durbin (D-IL). Full text of the bill, S. 774 now up on Thomas site (similar to the House version, H.R. 1275, which was introduced on March 1). Why DREAM's worthwhile here. And Education Sector's related presidential proposal here. Hard to say if it will pass this time since it's fallen short several times before. But this year is probably it's best shot.
One More Thing...
On the topic of the anti-public education conspiracy. One could plausibly argue that the worse thing President Bush has done to public education is not embrace the education policies of the radical right. After all, the chief historical legacy of the Bush Administration will be exposing just how foolish the various policy fantasies of the extreme political right really are. By actually trying to privatize Social Security, raise revenue by cutting taxes, achieve peace through endless war, etc., President Bush has set back the cause of crackpot right-wing policy entrepreneurs by a generation or more. The anti-public education folks have managed to escape all of this, and are thus free to hold conferences, raise money, and peddle their fringe theories with impunity for the foreseeable future.
Fish, A Barrel, Etc.
Rick Hess writes about the Duke Lacrosse player contretemps at the National Review Online. He recounts how after the incident 88 faculty members quickly sponsored a full-page advertisement in the student newspaper, which declared: “These students are shouting and whispering about what happened to this young woman and themselves” and “the disaster didn’t begin on March 13th and won’t end with what the police say or the court decides." But as the facts of the case have come into question, the sponsors of the ad are backpedaling...sort of. Hess notes:
But the difference, I think, is that this kind of thinking and speaking is not only normal in higher education, it's encouraged. In fact, it's necessary to get ahead in some fields and land jobs at prestigous colleges like Duke. Most people, in the course of growing up, learn not to say things in public that are so risible that they defy parody. It takes a lot to break that instinct, but our colleges and universities have apparently figured out how to pull it off.
Karla F. C. Holloway, the English professor who dreamed up the ad, explains that professors should “give voice to student concerns.” Moreover, as Holloway recently told The Chronicle of Higher Education, no one should have imagined that the ad was accusing the young men of rape. For instance, she says, the phrase “what happened to this young woman” did not mean that the faculty presumed she had been raped. Holloway explains, “Something did happen [at the house]. A party happened. Drunkenness happened. If you want to read ‘happening’ in one particular way, that’s the bias you bring to your reading.”On the one hand, there's a certain shooting-fish-in-a-barrel element to quoting college professors talking this way. It's a big country and there are a lot of professors, so one could argue that just as you can always find a blond middle school teacher somewhere who's been spending a little too much time after class with her pupils, so too can you always find an academic using academic jargon to make a fool of herself.
But the difference, I think, is that this kind of thinking and speaking is not only normal in higher education, it's encouraged. In fact, it's necessary to get ahead in some fields and land jobs at prestigous colleges like Duke. Most people, in the course of growing up, learn not to say things in public that are so risible that they defy parody. It takes a lot to break that instinct, but our colleges and universities have apparently figured out how to pull it off.
That Settles That
Yesterday we had a long, multi-blog debate about the idea, widespread among educators, that NCLB is part of a conservative conspiracy to destroy public education. Today, the Washington Post went above the fold with an article titled "Dozens in GOP Turn Against Bush's Prized 'No Child' Act," wherein conservative NCLB opponent Pete Hoekstra (R-Mich.) says "The President believes in empowering bureaucrats in Washington, and I believe in local and parental control," while the Fordham Foundations' Mike Petrilli notes that "with the president so politically weak, conservatives can vote their conscience."
Meanwhile, on the Op-Ed page, Robert Novak quotes Tom Delay about President Bush: "he has expanded government to suit his purpose, especially in the area of education. He may be compassionate, but he is certainly no conservative in the classic sense."
Hey, I wish it was always this easy. (Points to first Q&E reader who sends in an example of an NCLB opponent chalking this up to some sort of brilliant double-blind conservative deep game strategy: "You see, that's just what Karl Rove wants you to think....")
While it's nice to have the newspaper make your points for you, I question the article itself. First and foremost, what the heck is it doing on the front page? True, this legisation "could severely undercut President Bush's signature domestic achievement," if the Republicans controlled Congress. Which they don't. And if they did, they wouldn't have introduced the legislation in the first place. Isn't this just another piece of minority-party protest legislation, designed for purely political purposes?
The article notes that:
Really? Which critics? Did they offer any, you know, examples or data to support those criticisms? If not--and I'm guessing not--doesn't that suggest that this is, again, a purely political exercise?
To his credit, Kevin Drum notes that the article undermines a lot of the argument he made yesterday. But I still think he's getting key parts of the law wrong. The testing requirements aren't reallly "outlandishly complex," indeed a lot of the most valid anti-NCLB criticism focuses on the tests and school performance indicators being too simple (not that some people won't happily make both arguments simultaneously). And, per Eduwonk yesterday (and again this morning), it's just not true that "80% of our schools systems are basically OK." Probably 80% think they're okay, but that doesn't mean they are. All those students not learning and dropping out go to school somewhere.
Meanwhile, on the Op-Ed page, Robert Novak quotes Tom Delay about President Bush: "he has expanded government to suit his purpose, especially in the area of education. He may be compassionate, but he is certainly no conservative in the classic sense."
Hey, I wish it was always this easy. (Points to first Q&E reader who sends in an example of an NCLB opponent chalking this up to some sort of brilliant double-blind conservative deep game strategy: "You see, that's just what Karl Rove wants you to think....")
While it's nice to have the newspaper make your points for you, I question the article itself. First and foremost, what the heck is it doing on the front page? True, this legisation "could severely undercut President Bush's signature domestic achievement," if the Republicans controlled Congress. Which they don't. And if they did, they wouldn't have introduced the legislation in the first place. Isn't this just another piece of minority-party protest legislation, designed for purely political purposes?
The article notes that:
"Once-innovative public schools have increasingly become captive to federal testing mandates, jettisoning education programs not covered by those tests, siphoning funds from programs for the talented and gifted, and discouraging creativity, critics say."
Really? Which critics? Did they offer any, you know, examples or data to support those criticisms? If not--and I'm guessing not--doesn't that suggest that this is, again, a purely political exercise?
To his credit, Kevin Drum notes that the article undermines a lot of the argument he made yesterday. But I still think he's getting key parts of the law wrong. The testing requirements aren't reallly "outlandishly complex," indeed a lot of the most valid anti-NCLB criticism focuses on the tests and school performance indicators being too simple (not that some people won't happily make both arguments simultaneously). And, per Eduwonk yesterday (and again this morning), it's just not true that "80% of our schools systems are basically OK." Probably 80% think they're okay, but that doesn't mean they are. All those students not learning and dropping out go to school somewhere.
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
ES Interview: The "Godfather" of Head Start
Edward F. Zigler is one of the nation's leading experts on and advocates for young children. Trained as a researcher in the 1950s, a key member of the group that founded Head Start in the 1960s, Zigler remains, at 77, a prolific scholar and committed advocate for young children.
Hechinger Institute director and Education Sector Senior Fellow Richard Colvin (whose early childhood blog, Early Stories, you really should be reading, if you aren't already) recently interviewed Zigler and asked him about his experiences as a scholar and advocate, his views on universal prekindergarten, preschool quality, Head Start, and childcare. Never one to pull punches, Zigler has some provocative and interesting things to say on these topics. You can read all this and more in the Education Sector Interview.
Hechinger Institute director and Education Sector Senior Fellow Richard Colvin (whose early childhood blog, Early Stories, you really should be reading, if you aren't already) recently interviewed Zigler and asked him about his experiences as a scholar and advocate, his views on universal prekindergarten, preschool quality, Head Start, and childcare. Never one to pull punches, Zigler has some provocative and interesting things to say on these topics. You can read all this and more in the Education Sector Interview.
The Myth of Conservative Love for NCLB
Kevin and Matt and Andy have done a good job explaining why claims that NCLB is a secret plot to privatize public educaiton reflect paranoia more than reality. I want to tackle one piece of the argument neither has adressed yet: The perception that hardcore conservatives and the religious right support NCLB. This is wrong. Hardcore conservatives and the religious right were not excited about NCLB; they held their nose and voted for, or did not oppose it, because they were told that it was part of the price for the 2000 electoral victory of a President who would do other things they supported.
Before the 2000 election, most of the major conservative groups had coalesced around an Elementary and Secondary Education Act reauthorization proposal--"Straight A's"--that was primarily focused around local "flexibility" and converting existing federal education funding streams to block grants. The NCLB proposals Bush put out during the campaign were a break with this. Conservatives accepted it though, because they were told that the "softer," more soccer-mom friendly line Bush played on education during the 2000 campaign was important to winning over centrist voters in a year when voters unprecedentedly claimed education was their top concern. Conservatives were also placated by voucher proposals that were included in Bush's campaign plan (as well as in the proposal he initially introduced to Congress, though vouchers were basically DOA there) and, to a lesser extent, Reading First's emphasis on phonics. But they were never crazy about NCLB, and it's certainly not the policy they would have written if they had been in charge.
Just look at the roll call votes on NCLB's passage in the House: Of those voting "nay" on the NCLB conference report, 33 were Republicans, 6 were Dems, and 2 were Independents. And those R names include ones like Delay, Hoekstra, Pitts--the House's most conservative.
Conservatives became increasingly unhappy with NCLB during the course to its passage and have become even more unhappy since then. They got very little that they initially wanted in the law: No vouchers, very little in the way of increased "flexibility" and consolidation of federal programs, and large increases in funding for NCLB programs over the past 5 years. Several of the prominent conservatives who stood behind the law in 2001 have turned their back on it, and conservative leaders are once again coalescing around an NCLB reauthorization proposal that looks shockingly like where they were in 1999--a reheated version of the Straight A's Act.
Before the 2000 election, most of the major conservative groups had coalesced around an Elementary and Secondary Education Act reauthorization proposal--"Straight A's"--that was primarily focused around local "flexibility" and converting existing federal education funding streams to block grants. The NCLB proposals Bush put out during the campaign were a break with this. Conservatives accepted it though, because they were told that the "softer," more soccer-mom friendly line Bush played on education during the 2000 campaign was important to winning over centrist voters in a year when voters unprecedentedly claimed education was their top concern. Conservatives were also placated by voucher proposals that were included in Bush's campaign plan (as well as in the proposal he initially introduced to Congress, though vouchers were basically DOA there) and, to a lesser extent, Reading First's emphasis on phonics. But they were never crazy about NCLB, and it's certainly not the policy they would have written if they had been in charge.
Just look at the roll call votes on NCLB's passage in the House: Of those voting "nay" on the NCLB conference report, 33 were Republicans, 6 were Dems, and 2 were Independents. And those R names include ones like Delay, Hoekstra, Pitts--the House's most conservative.
Conservatives became increasingly unhappy with NCLB during the course to its passage and have become even more unhappy since then. They got very little that they initially wanted in the law: No vouchers, very little in the way of increased "flexibility" and consolidation of federal programs, and large increases in funding for NCLB programs over the past 5 years. Several of the prominent conservatives who stood behind the law in 2001 have turned their back on it, and conservative leaders are once again coalescing around an NCLB reauthorization proposal that looks shockingly like where they were in 1999--a reheated version of the Straight A's Act.
The Phantom Pro-NCLB Anti-Public Education Conspiracy
Following up on the post below about the notion that NCLB is just a stalking horse for a broader conspiracy against public education.
Over the last six years, the Bush administration has supported a whole range of radical and/or deeply conservative policies, and in many cases they've managed to spin these ideas as sensible and/or moderate. But it's never been hard to figure out their true intentions, because the originators and prime supporters of the ideas have always been right out in the open for everyone to see. The 2001 tax cuts were pushed by anti-tax zealots like Americans for Tax Reform; the Iraq war was supported by people with dreams of a 21st Century Pax Americana; the constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage was backed by religous fundamentalists with deep antipathy for gay people; etc., etc.
None of this was a secret. You could call Grover Norquist at any time, day or night, and he would happily explain the grand plan to cut taxes every year until government was small enough to strangle in a bathtub. The same was true for pepple with imperial ambitions, people who want to force gays and lesbians back in the closet, people who want to drill for oil in national parks, privatize Social Security, and so on and so forth.
Moreover, these weren't people who just happened to share a political ideology or party affiliation with the Bush administration. These were the actual people directing or implementing the policies, either through regular consultation with the White House, or by being hired into the appropriate positions within the government.
Where were the members of the vast anti-public education conspiracy hiding during all of this? The early years of the Bush administration were a heady time, a historical moment where conservatives could finally put their true intentions on the table for all to see, because they were finally in charge. You could say some crazy stuff back then--let's abolish Social Security! and rule the world!--and people would actually take you seriously.
But instead of leading the charge for a national voucher system, the President passed a bipartisan education bill with the cooperation and support of leading Democrats. Instead of putting someone who wants to destroy public education in charge of public education--which would have been a pretty typical maneuver for this administration--he appointed an urban school superintendant to be Secretary of Education. Then he replaced him with the former chief lobbyist for a state school boards assocation.
There are anti-NCLB / anti-public schools folks like Cato, and pro-NCLB / pro-public schools groups, like the Education Trust. There is also a large group of people who are anti-NCLB and pro-public education, like the NEA. But that doesn't mean that the opposite must therefore be true. The coalition of conservatives who are both pro-NCLB and anti-public education doesn't exist, at least not in any meaningful sense.
Over the last six years, the Bush administration has supported a whole range of radical and/or deeply conservative policies, and in many cases they've managed to spin these ideas as sensible and/or moderate. But it's never been hard to figure out their true intentions, because the originators and prime supporters of the ideas have always been right out in the open for everyone to see. The 2001 tax cuts were pushed by anti-tax zealots like Americans for Tax Reform; the Iraq war was supported by people with dreams of a 21st Century Pax Americana; the constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage was backed by religous fundamentalists with deep antipathy for gay people; etc., etc.
None of this was a secret. You could call Grover Norquist at any time, day or night, and he would happily explain the grand plan to cut taxes every year until government was small enough to strangle in a bathtub. The same was true for pepple with imperial ambitions, people who want to force gays and lesbians back in the closet, people who want to drill for oil in national parks, privatize Social Security, and so on and so forth.
Moreover, these weren't people who just happened to share a political ideology or party affiliation with the Bush administration. These were the actual people directing or implementing the policies, either through regular consultation with the White House, or by being hired into the appropriate positions within the government.
Where were the members of the vast anti-public education conspiracy hiding during all of this? The early years of the Bush administration were a heady time, a historical moment where conservatives could finally put their true intentions on the table for all to see, because they were finally in charge. You could say some crazy stuff back then--let's abolish Social Security! and rule the world!--and people would actually take you seriously.
But instead of leading the charge for a national voucher system, the President passed a bipartisan education bill with the cooperation and support of leading Democrats. Instead of putting someone who wants to destroy public education in charge of public education--which would have been a pretty typical maneuver for this administration--he appointed an urban school superintendant to be Secretary of Education. Then he replaced him with the former chief lobbyist for a state school boards assocation.
There are anti-NCLB / anti-public schools folks like Cato, and pro-NCLB / pro-public schools groups, like the Education Trust. There is also a large group of people who are anti-NCLB and pro-public education, like the NEA. But that doesn't mean that the opposite must therefore be true. The coalition of conservatives who are both pro-NCLB and anti-public education doesn't exist, at least not in any meaningful sense.
Basketball, Girls and Tech
If you're interested in science, tech, engineering and math (STEM) issues, a good resource to know about is the National Girls Collaborative Project*, a relatively new initiative that's serving as a national clearinghouse of public and private resources to advance the participation of girls in STEM. We need this so we don't waste resources developing the same projects all over the country (some good wheels having been invented and all that). Also, check out the WomenTech Portal, which is a new resource from the IWITTS (Inst for women in trades, tech and science) site where educators can find research-based articles and some programmatic resources on recruiting and retaining women in tech.
No, there's no real connection between basketball, girls and tech but since there's madness for the former it seemed like a more appealing title for the post. And on that note, here's the women's bracket and a chance to help girls in sports even if you don't care about the tournaments.
Disclosure: I sat on the NGCP Board while at AAUW
No, there's no real connection between basketball, girls and tech but since there's madness for the former it seemed like a more appealing title for the post. And on that note, here's the women's bracket and a chance to help girls in sports even if you don't care about the tournaments.
Disclosure: I sat on the NGCP Board while at AAUW
NCLB Paranoia
Matt Yglesias has a smart post about how some people are too quick to succumb to paranoid interpretation of NCLB--that the 100 percent proficient target is a conspiracy to destroy public education. As he rightly points out, it's a strange anti-public education conspiracy that counts Ted Kennedy and George Miller as enthusiastic members, but excludes organizations like the Cato Institute that actually do want to destroy public education, yet hate NCLB.
It's worth noting for the record that "100 percent proficient" doesn't mean that every student has to score 100 percent on the state test. It means that every student needs to pass the state test, which in some cases can mean only getting 60 percent of the questions right, or fewer.
Some of Matt's commenters draw the Iraq resolution analogy--Democrats got snookered by the Bush Administration then, this is no different. But this ignores the fact that (A) Kennedy and Miller didn't just vote for NCLB, they wrote many parts of the law, and (B) Unlike the Iraq resolution, Kennedy and Miller are still steadfast NCLB supporters today.
At The Washington Monthly, Kevin Drum, in the post to which Matt was responding, says:
NCLB doesn't identify schools as "failing." It identifies them as "in need of improvement." Those words don't mean the same thing, and they're not meant to mean the same thing. And while it's true that the in need of improvemet schools can lose money, the children in the schools never lose money, because all the money in question is used to (A) provide them with free after-school tutoring, or (B) let them transfer to another, better school. So let's be clear about who, exactly, is being penalized here.
Moreover, the whole idea that every school in America will soon be identified as "failing" is simply contradicted by the facts. Check out, for example, this article in yesterday's Chicago Tribune about how the percent of Illinois schools making adequate progress under NCLB last year went up, from 74 to 82 percent. One can argue, as I do in the article, that these numbers are in significant part a result of states using their discretion under NCLB to monkey around with the law's school identification mechanisms. But that's the way things are playing out.
The point being, if the people who wrote NCLB were really trying to identify every school in America as failing, they did a pretty bad job of it. Which makes you think that maybe--just maybe--that wasn't their intent at all.
It's worth noting for the record that "100 percent proficient" doesn't mean that every student has to score 100 percent on the state test. It means that every student needs to pass the state test, which in some cases can mean only getting 60 percent of the questions right, or fewer.
Some of Matt's commenters draw the Iraq resolution analogy--Democrats got snookered by the Bush Administration then, this is no different. But this ignores the fact that (A) Kennedy and Miller didn't just vote for NCLB, they wrote many parts of the law, and (B) Unlike the Iraq resolution, Kennedy and Miller are still steadfast NCLB supporters today.
At The Washington Monthly, Kevin Drum, in the post to which Matt was responding, says:
the 100% goal isn't just rhetorical. It comes with penalties. If you don't meet the standard, you lose money, you're officially deemed a "failing school," and your students are eligible to transfer to other schools. And needless to say, by 2014 there won't be any satisfactory public schools to send them to because 99% of them won't have met the standard.
NCLB doesn't identify schools as "failing." It identifies them as "in need of improvement." Those words don't mean the same thing, and they're not meant to mean the same thing. And while it's true that the in need of improvemet schools can lose money, the children in the schools never lose money, because all the money in question is used to (A) provide them with free after-school tutoring, or (B) let them transfer to another, better school. So let's be clear about who, exactly, is being penalized here.
Moreover, the whole idea that every school in America will soon be identified as "failing" is simply contradicted by the facts. Check out, for example, this article in yesterday's Chicago Tribune about how the percent of Illinois schools making adequate progress under NCLB last year went up, from 74 to 82 percent. One can argue, as I do in the article, that these numbers are in significant part a result of states using their discretion under NCLB to monkey around with the law's school identification mechanisms. But that's the way things are playing out.
The point being, if the people who wrote NCLB were really trying to identify every school in America as failing, they did a pretty bad job of it. Which makes you think that maybe--just maybe--that wasn't their intent at all.
Monday, March 12, 2007
March Graduation Rate Madness
The 2007 NCAA Men's basketball tournament bracket has been announced. While nobody knows for sure who's going to win, a few things are certain. There will be thrilling upsets, bitter defeats, and Cinderella stories. Jim Valvano's mantra, "survive and advance," will be invoked roughly once every 47 seconds over the three-week period. Seth Davis will preen, Dick Vitale will annoy, and a lot of these basketball players will never graduate from college.
Because of college basketball, the federal government has been collecting graduation rate data from every four-year college in the country since the early 1990s. Bill Bradley sponsored the Student Right-to-Know Act in large part because he was concerned about colleges that recruited athletes but rarely helped them earn degrees. Grad rate data for individual sports programs is hard to come by, because the NCAA has since invented a more generous, alternative grad rate methodology. Also, federal privacy laws prohibit schools from publishing grad rates for very small groups of students--like, for example, a basketball team.
But we do have graduation rate data for schools as whole, broken down by students' race and gender. A few facts:
Because of college basketball, the federal government has been collecting graduation rate data from every four-year college in the country since the early 1990s. Bill Bradley sponsored the Student Right-to-Know Act in large part because he was concerned about colleges that recruited athletes but rarely helped them earn degrees. Grad rate data for individual sports programs is hard to come by, because the NCAA has since invented a more generous, alternative grad rate methodology. Also, federal privacy laws prohibit schools from publishing grad rates for very small groups of students--like, for example, a basketball team.
But we do have graduation rate data for schools as whole, broken down by students' race and gender. A few facts:
- The median six-year graduation rate for black men (not just basketball players, but the entire student population) at school that made the 2007 NCAA men's basketball tournament is 50.6%. The highest is Vanderbilt (92.6%), while the lowest is Memphis (18.9%). Seventeen schools graduate one-third or fewer black men within six years.
- The median grad rate for white men is 67.8%. Of the 48 schools that reported grad rates for both white men and black men, 43 have higher grad rates for white men than black men. The median graduation rate gap between black men and white men is 17.5 percentage points. The largest gap, 36.6 percentage points, is at Marquette.
Now, I know that a few people will leave school without a degree for good reasons--somehow I don't think Greg Oden will be getting his B.A. from Ohio State (go Buckeyes) in May 2010. But that's a rare exception. While it's true that some people will transfer to another school, giving the average college credit for students who transfer elsewhere and graduate on time only increases their graduation rate by about eight percentage points. And while some people will take longer than six years to finish, their numbers are also relatively small.
The bottom line is that many of these students arent's getting a degree from anywhere, ever. Graduation rates, particularly for minority students, are very low at many colleges and universities. Really, scandalously low. Here's the 2007 NCAA bracket, with grad rates for black men and white men in parantheses, in that order:
SOUTH
1. Ohio State (48.1 / 65.9)
16. Central Connecticut State (22.0 / 35.0)
8. B.Y.U. (NA / 57.4)
9. Xavier (69.2 / 80.5)
5. Tennessee (38.3 / 53.8)
12.Long Beach State (22.7 / 45.3)
4. Virginia (75.0 / 92.3)
13. Albany (50.6 / 59.6)
2. Memphis (18.9 / 30.2)
15. North Texas (35.3 / 35.0)
7. Nevada (19.2 / 46.6)
10. Creighton (NA / 75.9)
3. Texas A&M (51.4 / 74.2)
14. Penn (76.7 / 93.4)
6. Louisville (27.4 / 34.6)
11. Stanford (88.7 / 95.3)
EAST
1. North Carolina (61.8 / 82.8)
16. Eastern Kentucky (20.6 / 32.3)
8. Marquette (42.3 / 78.9)
9. Michigan State (51.9 / 75.6)
5. USC (61.2 / 81.5)
12. Arkansas (34.9 / 54.0)
4. Texas ( 57.5 / 72.2)
13. New Mexico State (31.8 / 39.5)
2. Georgetown (74.5 / 94.9)
15. Belmont (NA / 58.0)
7. Boston College (74.0 / 91.8)
10. Texas Tech (45.0 / 52.9)
3. Washington State (42.9 / 60.6)
14. Oral Roberts (33.3 / 56.0)
6. Vanderbilt (92.6 / 88.6)
11. George Washington (60.0 / 77.9)
WEST
1. Kansas (31.1 / 57.0)
16. Florida A&M (33.7 / 36.4) or Niagara (54.5 / 68.5)
8. Kentucky (31.9 / 57.2)
9. Villanova (69.2 / 83.4)
5. Virginia Tech (57.3 / 74.4)
12. Illinois (57.2 / 84)
4. Southern Illinois (24.3 / 41.2)
13. Holy Cross (72.7 / 92.8)
2. UCLA (60.0 / 86.0)
15. Weber State (NA / 41)
7. Indiana (40.3 / 71.9)
10. Gonzaga (NA / 74.5)
3. Pittsburgh (54.3 / 67.6)
14. Wright State (33.3 / 36.6)
6. Duke (81.4 / 94.4)
11. Virginia Commonwealth (31.9 / 35.9)
MIDWEST
1. Florida (60.0 / 77.8)
16. Jackson State (31.6 / NA)
8. Arizona (32.9 / 58.0)
9. Purdue (43.5 / 66.8)
5. Butler (69.2 / 68.0)
12. Old Dominion (42.2 / 39.5)
4. Maryland (59.8 / 77.8)
13. Davidson (54.5 / 88.0)
2. Wisconsin (52.2 / 77.4)
15. Texas A&M Corpus Christi (NA / 30.4)
7. UNLV (23.4 / 37)
10. Georgia Tech (56.8 / 72.5)
3. Oregon (28.6 / 62.4)
14. Miami (Ohio) (46.4 / 80.8)
6. Notre Dame (62.5 / 96.2)
11. Winthrop (53.4 / 46.7)
Don't Go There
I haven't read Rod Paige's new book on teachers unions, but I assume that Andy Rotherham's negative review is on the mark. The bottom line is that once you slander an entire group of educators by calling them a "terrorist organization," you really can't go on and write a book subtitled "How Teacher Unions Hurt Children, Hinder Teachers, and Endanger Public Education." It's like Mel Gibson writing a book about Israeli foreign policy--you just can't go there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)