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.
Friday, March 09, 2007
The Higher Education Lobby 1, Students 0
When special interests subvert good public policy, they usually try to cover their tracks. While people in the know can guess what really happened, both the influencers and the influencees usually create enough plausible deniability to escape blame.
But sometimes it all happens right out in the open, and that in itself tells you a lot about the lobby and the issue at hand. So it was yesterday with the announcement--first reported yesterday in the Chronicle of Higher Education and also this morning in Inside Higher Education-- that the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) will be pulling back on an initiative to gather better education statistics about higher education.
Here's what happened: Over the last five years or so, many colleges have begun to collect information about how well they teach their students and how much their students learn, through survey instruments like the National Survey of Student Engagment (NSSE) and tests like the Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA). While most institutions keep the results confidential, some make them publicly available. NCES proposed that those institutions submit the link to the Web page containing the results. That way NCES could include that link on it's free College Opportunities On-Line Web page, so that high school students choosing colleges could see the information.
In a response, the higher education lobby had a cow.
And so it was depressing but unsurprising to hear Grover J. (Russ) Whitehurst, director of the Institute for Education Sciences, say, in so many words, "The people who made this decision were just trying to do the right thing and fulfill the NCES mission of gathering education information in the best interests of the public. They didn't realize that sometimes people in positions of greater authority within the government have to compromise the public interest in order to placate special interests." Thus, the requirement to submit links to the already-public teaching and learning data will be removed.
Just to be clear: The Department of Education wasn't requiring any institution to participate in NSSE, the CLA, or any other survey or assessment process. Nor was it requiring institutions that participate but choose to keep the results confidential to disclose their results. All it said was that if you do disclose them, let us know where, so students choosing colleges can see them.
Why is higher education acting like it has something to hide? Because it does. The plain truth is that a great many institutions are doing a mediocre or worse job of educating undergraduate students. Everyone knows this, but nobody wants to say so, because fixing that problem would require a lot of hard choices. Thus, any attempt to raise the issue--or to disclose data about the issue--is quickly squashed. Or, as Whitehurst said (this is an actual quote):
The federal government provides higher education with tens of billions of dollars in the form of tax preferences, research grants, and student aid, but it "exceeds the response of a federal authority" to even create incentives for institutions to possibly disclose information that would indicate whether or not they're using all of that money to help the students and families who are paying those taxes.
That says it all.
But sometimes it all happens right out in the open, and that in itself tells you a lot about the lobby and the issue at hand. So it was yesterday with the announcement--first reported yesterday in the Chronicle of Higher Education and also this morning in Inside Higher Education-- that the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) will be pulling back on an initiative to gather better education statistics about higher education.
Here's what happened: Over the last five years or so, many colleges have begun to collect information about how well they teach their students and how much their students learn, through survey instruments like the National Survey of Student Engagment (NSSE) and tests like the Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA). While most institutions keep the results confidential, some make them publicly available. NCES proposed that those institutions submit the link to the Web page containing the results. That way NCES could include that link on it's free College Opportunities On-Line Web page, so that high school students choosing colleges could see the information.
In a response, the higher education lobby had a cow.
And so it was depressing but unsurprising to hear Grover J. (Russ) Whitehurst, director of the Institute for Education Sciences, say, in so many words, "The people who made this decision were just trying to do the right thing and fulfill the NCES mission of gathering education information in the best interests of the public. They didn't realize that sometimes people in positions of greater authority within the government have to compromise the public interest in order to placate special interests." Thus, the requirement to submit links to the already-public teaching and learning data will be removed.
Just to be clear: The Department of Education wasn't requiring any institution to participate in NSSE, the CLA, or any other survey or assessment process. Nor was it requiring institutions that participate but choose to keep the results confidential to disclose their results. All it said was that if you do disclose them, let us know where, so students choosing colleges can see them.
Why is higher education acting like it has something to hide? Because it does. The plain truth is that a great many institutions are doing a mediocre or worse job of educating undergraduate students. Everyone knows this, but nobody wants to say so, because fixing that problem would require a lot of hard choices. Thus, any attempt to raise the issue--or to disclose data about the issue--is quickly squashed. Or, as Whitehurst said (this is an actual quote):
“We understand in the current environment that people see this as a foot in the door for a potential move some time in the future to require some kind of student learning outcome, by providing strong incentives to collect that. We think that’s a state or association role to move in that direction. It exceeds the response of a federal authority or control to be incentivizing that kind of collection.”
The federal government provides higher education with tens of billions of dollars in the form of tax preferences, research grants, and student aid, but it "exceeds the response of a federal authority" to even create incentives for institutions to possibly disclose information that would indicate whether or not they're using all of that money to help the students and families who are paying those taxes.
That says it all.
Wednesday, March 07, 2007
NCLB Higher Ed? No, Not Really
Alex Kingsbury has an informative state-of-play piece in U.S. News & World Report about measuring student learning in higher education, and how that information might be used to hold colleges and universities accountable for doing a good job teaching their students.
There's an extremely reductive way of talking about these issues, which goes something like this:
"The Bush Administration, which ruined K-12 education by imposing an insulting, simplistic, wrong-headed NCLB accountability system based on low-level standardized tests, is now trying to screw up higher education in the same way. This is wrong."
That's really not what's going on. There will be no NCLB-HE. But there are things the federal government can and should do to start getting more information about higher education quality out into the hands of the public, and to create incentives for universities to do a better job of teaching undergraduates. The difference between this and the accountability nightmare described above is mostly a matter of being smart, judicious, and reasonable--qualities that are admittedly not exactly in surplus within the Bush administration on the whole. But overall I think the Secretary Spellings is doing the right thing here. There was no great political outcry for her to take on the difficult issue of higher education reform, that she did so anyway is to her credit, and her efforts so far have been worthwhile.
There's an extremely reductive way of talking about these issues, which goes something like this:
"The Bush Administration, which ruined K-12 education by imposing an insulting, simplistic, wrong-headed NCLB accountability system based on low-level standardized tests, is now trying to screw up higher education in the same way. This is wrong."
That's really not what's going on. There will be no NCLB-HE. But there are things the federal government can and should do to start getting more information about higher education quality out into the hands of the public, and to create incentives for universities to do a better job of teaching undergraduates. The difference between this and the accountability nightmare described above is mostly a matter of being smart, judicious, and reasonable--qualities that are admittedly not exactly in surplus within the Bush administration on the whole. But overall I think the Secretary Spellings is doing the right thing here. There was no great political outcry for her to take on the difficult issue of higher education reform, that she did so anyway is to her credit, and her efforts so far have been worthwhile.
Teaching Religion
Boston University Professor Stephen Prothero's new book, Religious Literacy: What Every American Needs to Know--And Doesn't, argues that, despite high levels of religiousity, Americans on average are shockingly ignorant about both the religions they profess to believe and world religions. Prothero further argues that this ignorance is dangerous at a time when religion is playing an increasing role in both domestic politics and in conflicts around the world, and recommends that schools begin teaching religion as history and culture to counteract this ignorance. (Sound familiar, eduwonk readers?)
Prothero has a good point: you only have to look at the debate among political pundits over whether or not Mitt Romney is a Christian, or the inability of many of our nation's political and foreign policy leaders to differentiate Shiite from Sunni Muslims to understand the seriousness of this ignorance. Prothero explains American's lack of religious literacy largely in terms of American protestant revivalism's historical emphasis on a personal relationship with God over theology. Susan Jacoby, writing in The Washington Post, suggests it's actually a reflection of a broader deficit in Americans' civic and cultural knowledge. I'll take a step further and suggest its part of a general lack of knowledge, period, among even many educated Americans, because, as E.D. Hirsch has written, our schools do not focus on inculcating cultural knowledge in students and often even disdain teaching of a defined body of core knowledge in literature, history, and, yes, religion. It's worth noting that Hirsch's Dictionary of Cultural Literacy includes a lot of religious literacy, too.
One could draw an interesting parallel between, on the one hand, progressivist education's emphasis on process, thinking skills, and shaping children's self-esteem and values, over inculcating knowledge, and, on the other hand, American religion's emphasis on personal emotional experience, personal moral behavior, and a relationship with Christ over theology.
I actually think both sides of the equation are important, in both education and religion.
A false choice is often posed in education between Hirsch-style content knowledge and progressivist-style higher-order thinking skills. A Newsweek article about Prothero actually makes an important point about this debate, as well as accountability:
Note that in this story, content knowledge didn't compete with higher-order thinking, but was a prerequisite to it. Note also Prothero's straightforward approach to making sure his students got that content knowledge: first find out what they don't know, then teach it to 'em. Seems straightforward enough, but it's all too often not what happens for kids. Accountability also plays a key role in this formula: testing (quizzes) is critical to find out what the kids don't know and, presumably, to determine whether or not they've learned it after it's taught. Note nobody's whining about how devastating it was for Prothero's students to take these quizzes they couldn't pass.
All that said, I share Jacoby's skepticism about Prothero's proposal to require high school students to take courses in religious history. She writes "given the failure of so many schools to inculcate the most elementary facts about American history, it is hard to imagine that most teachers would be up to the task of explaining, say, the subtleties of biblical arguments for and against slavery." I have similar concerns, although the obvious answer--in this or any area where schools aren't getting kids content knowledge they need--is not to give up, but to figure out how policies can give schools the resources and support they need to teach kids this knowledge. More important to me, there are limited hours of the day and there are trade-offs in the things we decide to emphasize in our curricular requirements: How should we weigh learning about religious history against American history, against other literature, against math and science? I don't know, but I do agree that we need to do a better job in passing on to our students their cultural patrimony, in history, literature and, yes, religion.
Prothero has a good point: you only have to look at the debate among political pundits over whether or not Mitt Romney is a Christian, or the inability of many of our nation's political and foreign policy leaders to differentiate Shiite from Sunni Muslims to understand the seriousness of this ignorance. Prothero explains American's lack of religious literacy largely in terms of American protestant revivalism's historical emphasis on a personal relationship with God over theology. Susan Jacoby, writing in The Washington Post, suggests it's actually a reflection of a broader deficit in Americans' civic and cultural knowledge. I'll take a step further and suggest its part of a general lack of knowledge, period, among even many educated Americans, because, as E.D. Hirsch has written, our schools do not focus on inculcating cultural knowledge in students and often even disdain teaching of a defined body of core knowledge in literature, history, and, yes, religion. It's worth noting that Hirsch's Dictionary of Cultural Literacy includes a lot of religious literacy, too.
One could draw an interesting parallel between, on the one hand, progressivist education's emphasis on process, thinking skills, and shaping children's self-esteem and values, over inculcating knowledge, and, on the other hand, American religion's emphasis on personal emotional experience, personal moral behavior, and a relationship with Christ over theology.
I actually think both sides of the equation are important, in both education and religion.
A false choice is often posed in education between Hirsch-style content knowledge and progressivist-style higher-order thinking skills. A Newsweek article about Prothero actually makes an important point about this debate, as well as accountability:
When he began teaching college 17 years ago, Prothero writes, he discovered that few of his students could name the authors of the Christian Gospels. Fewer could name a single Hindu Scripture. Almost no one could name the first five books of the Hebrew Bible. Prothero, who went to Yale in the early 1980s and speaks of his all-night bull sessions on politics and religion with reverence, realized that to re-create that climate in his classroom, his students first had to know something. And so he made it his job to (1) figure out what they didn't know and (2) teach it to them. He began giving religious literacy quizzes to his students, and, subsequently, to everyone he knew. Almost everybody failed.
Note that in this story, content knowledge didn't compete with higher-order thinking, but was a prerequisite to it. Note also Prothero's straightforward approach to making sure his students got that content knowledge: first find out what they don't know, then teach it to 'em. Seems straightforward enough, but it's all too often not what happens for kids. Accountability also plays a key role in this formula: testing (quizzes) is critical to find out what the kids don't know and, presumably, to determine whether or not they've learned it after it's taught. Note nobody's whining about how devastating it was for Prothero's students to take these quizzes they couldn't pass.
All that said, I share Jacoby's skepticism about Prothero's proposal to require high school students to take courses in religious history. She writes "given the failure of so many schools to inculcate the most elementary facts about American history, it is hard to imagine that most teachers would be up to the task of explaining, say, the subtleties of biblical arguments for and against slavery." I have similar concerns, although the obvious answer--in this or any area where schools aren't getting kids content knowledge they need--is not to give up, but to figure out how policies can give schools the resources and support they need to teach kids this knowledge. More important to me, there are limited hours of the day and there are trade-offs in the things we decide to emphasize in our curricular requirements: How should we weigh learning about religious history against American history, against other literature, against math and science? I don't know, but I do agree that we need to do a better job in passing on to our students their cultural patrimony, in history, literature and, yes, religion.
CER-fing Web 2.0
Sometime when I wasn't looking, the Center for Education Reform decided to try to get all Web 2.0 and such.
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
Winning the Lottery
Via Crooked Timber, controvery in England over student assignment to schools (which they refer to as admissions). The Department for Eduction and Skills, equivalent of the U.S. Department of Education, has established new regulations that try to make student assignment to schools fairer through a variety of measures. Admissions criteria, such as interviews and requested donations, that were disproportionately a barrier to less advantaged students have been banned. Most radical, families can no longer guarantee their child a slot in a school by purchasing a home nearby.
These changes are understandably controversial, and the controversy has focused on the city of Brighton and Hove. In response to the new regulations, the local school authority there instituted a system that divides the city into six catchment areas and uses a lottery to assign children to a school within their cathment area. Previously, preference for slots in a particular school went to children living closest to it, prompting more affluent families to purchase homes as close as possible to popular schools, and raising the prices of homes in those neighborhoods. The goal of both the national policy changes and the specific lottery policy in Brighton is to increase equity and transparency in school admissions, but whether the policy will actually do this is subject to debate.
In many ways, England is farther down the choice road in public education than the United States, having instituted a national "open enrollment" policy under the Tory government in 1988. English schools have also typically had more freedom to choose students than most American schools. Strikingly, given the many differences between our two countries and education systems, many of the fears about increased choice are the same on both sides of the Atlantic--potential increases in social stratification, inequity for disadvantaged students, concerns about the impact on communities, etc.--as is the hope by choice proponents that it will increase educational customization and equity for disadvantaged children who are ill-served by residentially-based assignments. Americans who are interested in the interplay between choice and equity should keep an eye out to the debate there. This forthcoming paper on the subject from the Institute for Public Policy Research, an English think tank that falls somewhere between the Brookings Institution and my previous employer, also looks well worth checking out. Although most American schools and districts don't have "admissions" in the same way that English schools do, their idea of a local-area-wide "admissions authority" to handle the school assignment process for all students and schools would make a lot of sense in the growing number of American cities, like D.C. and New York, that have a growing array of public (and, in the case of D.C., private) school choice options.
Shameless Plug: If you want to know more about England's experience with education reform and what the U.S. can learn from it, check out this interview I did with Blair education reform architect Sir Michael Barber last winter.
These changes are understandably controversial, and the controversy has focused on the city of Brighton and Hove. In response to the new regulations, the local school authority there instituted a system that divides the city into six catchment areas and uses a lottery to assign children to a school within their cathment area. Previously, preference for slots in a particular school went to children living closest to it, prompting more affluent families to purchase homes as close as possible to popular schools, and raising the prices of homes in those neighborhoods. The goal of both the national policy changes and the specific lottery policy in Brighton is to increase equity and transparency in school admissions, but whether the policy will actually do this is subject to debate.
In many ways, England is farther down the choice road in public education than the United States, having instituted a national "open enrollment" policy under the Tory government in 1988. English schools have also typically had more freedom to choose students than most American schools. Strikingly, given the many differences between our two countries and education systems, many of the fears about increased choice are the same on both sides of the Atlantic--potential increases in social stratification, inequity for disadvantaged students, concerns about the impact on communities, etc.--as is the hope by choice proponents that it will increase educational customization and equity for disadvantaged children who are ill-served by residentially-based assignments. Americans who are interested in the interplay between choice and equity should keep an eye out to the debate there. This forthcoming paper on the subject from the Institute for Public Policy Research, an English think tank that falls somewhere between the Brookings Institution and my previous employer, also looks well worth checking out. Although most American schools and districts don't have "admissions" in the same way that English schools do, their idea of a local-area-wide "admissions authority" to handle the school assignment process for all students and schools would make a lot of sense in the growing number of American cities, like D.C. and New York, that have a growing array of public (and, in the case of D.C., private) school choice options.
Shameless Plug: If you want to know more about England's experience with education reform and what the U.S. can learn from it, check out this interview I did with Blair education reform architect Sir Michael Barber last winter.
Accountability, Responsibility, and Enron
Sherman Dorn notes the upcoming release of Collataral Damage: How High-Stakes Testing Corrupts America's Schools, a collection of anecdotes about educators making morally dubious choices when faced with the pressures of test-based educational accountability. Dorn says:
The Enron analogy comes up a lot in these conversations. It's worth examining, because it says a lot about the way people think about educators and public schools.
The people who ran Enron worked in an environment of high-stakes accountability. In their case, accountability was based on their financial performance, as reported in mandatory filings to a federal government agency, the Securities and Exchange Commission. If the numbers were good, their stock price went up, the company grew, and they all got rich. If the numbers were bad, the stock price went down, the company was damaged, and they could lose their jobs.
Unfortunately for the employees and shareholders of Enron, the people running the place made a series of spectacularly bad business decisions (Kurt Eichenwald's book, Conspiracy of Fools, has all the sordid details and is well worth reading). Even more unfortunately, they chose not to own up their incompetence. Instead, they tried to cover up their misdeeds with accounting shenanigans. They got caught, the company was destroyed, and a bunch of them went to jail.
In response, numerous pundits blamed the federal government for creating the financial accountability system, arguing that the otherwise-honest businessmen at Enron had been corrupted by the high-stakes pressure of filing quarterly SEC reports about their performance....
Oops, forgot we weren't talking about education.
Of course, nothing of the kind happened. People called for more accountabilty, not less. Congress passed the Sarbanes-Oxley Act over the objections of big business. And even as Ken Lay, Jeff Skilling, et. al., were excoriated far and wide as liars and thieves, they were at least given the respect implict in being held responsible their moral choices.
The plural of anecdotes is not representative data, but there are enough concerns over the past 5 years that we can say those who ignore test preparation and other side-effects of high-stakes testing are ignoring reality
... unless any of those happened to say that the fraud at WorldCom and Enron wasn't a reason to be concerned about corporate misdeeds. Then at least they can say they were consistent.
The Enron analogy comes up a lot in these conversations. It's worth examining, because it says a lot about the way people think about educators and public schools.
The people who ran Enron worked in an environment of high-stakes accountability. In their case, accountability was based on their financial performance, as reported in mandatory filings to a federal government agency, the Securities and Exchange Commission. If the numbers were good, their stock price went up, the company grew, and they all got rich. If the numbers were bad, the stock price went down, the company was damaged, and they could lose their jobs.
Unfortunately for the employees and shareholders of Enron, the people running the place made a series of spectacularly bad business decisions (Kurt Eichenwald's book, Conspiracy of Fools, has all the sordid details and is well worth reading). Even more unfortunately, they chose not to own up their incompetence. Instead, they tried to cover up their misdeeds with accounting shenanigans. They got caught, the company was destroyed, and a bunch of them went to jail.
In response, numerous pundits blamed the federal government for creating the financial accountability system, arguing that the otherwise-honest businessmen at Enron had been corrupted by the high-stakes pressure of filing quarterly SEC reports about their performance....
Oops, forgot we weren't talking about education.
Of course, nothing of the kind happened. People called for more accountabilty, not less. Congress passed the Sarbanes-Oxley Act over the objections of big business. And even as Ken Lay, Jeff Skilling, et. al., were excoriated far and wide as liars and thieves, they were at least given the respect implict in being held responsible their moral choices.
Monday, March 05, 2007
College Rankings Dirty Tricks
Richard Vedder of Ohio University, an outspoken member of the recent Spellings Commission on the Future of Higher Education, has a higher education blog called "Center for College Affordability and Productivity." It's smart, provocative and well worth reading. If there's ever an award for "Least Bland Blog With the Most Bland Name," it would definitely be a contender.
In this post, Vedder comments on a recent Wall Street Journal article$ from the invaluable Dan Golden about the way some colleges are manipulating the U.S. News & World Report college rankings. This says it all:
Which is exactly why the college rankings need to be more aligned with what actually matters in higher education -- teaching, learning, things like that.
In this post, Vedder comments on a recent Wall Street Journal article$ from the invaluable Dan Golden about the way some colleges are manipulating the U.S. News & World Report college rankings. This says it all:
ALBION, Mich. -- Adrian Jean Kammerer hasn't given Albion College a dime since she graduated in 2004. "I don't have money to be giving to Albion," says the law-school student. "I'm living off student loans."This kind of shameful book-cooking is nothing new; a few years ago it was all about dropping low-scoring students out of the average SAT numbers (the WSJ busted colleges on that one too). Implicit in all of this is a certain "it's all just a game" ethic--most colleges think the U.S. News rankings are illegitimate to begin with, so by that logic there's no harm in looking for an edge. Sort of like Gaylord Perry throwing spitballs or Michael Waltrip cheating in NASCAR.
Yet Albion counted Ms. Kammerer as an alumni donor to the school in 2004, 2005, and 2006. School officials keep her on the donor roll by treating the $30 she gave as a college senior as a $6 annual gift for five years. Ms. Kammerer isn't scheduled to drop off Albion's donor list until 2009.
Such fiddling -- which helped boost the percentage of donating Albion alums to 47% in 2006 from 36% in 1998 -- paid off handsomely. U.S. News & World Report's annual higher-education survey puts Albion's alumni-giving rate at 14th among liberal-arts colleges, contributing to an overall ranking of 91st among 215 such schools. In 2003, Albion boasted of its alumni-giving rate, among other credentials, in a cover letter for a grant application to the Kresge Foundation, which ultimately awarded the school $4.7 million.
Which is exactly why the college rankings need to be more aligned with what actually matters in higher education -- teaching, learning, things like that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)