Www.uschamberfoundation.org



ICW Media and Press

November, 2011 – February, 2012

BLOGS

New York’s New Deal

by Caitlin Codella,

February 17, 2012

In 2010, New York State promised to implement tough teacher evaluations in order to qualify for federal Race to the Top funds. Thursday, as the deadline to strike a deal was about to expire, the teachers’ unions, the state education commissioner, and Governor Andrew Cuomo reached an agreement. The new agreement will change the way teachers are evaluated by linking student performance to determine teacher effectiveness. In fact, 40% of a teacher’s grade will be based on student performance—a far cry from the old way of evaluating teachers which largely relied on classroom visits and colleague opinions.

In a statement released by the U.S. Department of Education Secretary Arne Duncan, he praised the collaboration saying, "Just a couple of months ago, I voiced my department's concerns that nearly a billion dollars in federal investments for education reform was at-risk. Yesterday, New York made clear that it wants to be a leader in education reform. The challenging conversation happening there over last several weeks is a testament to how tough this work is and why, for far too long, comprehensive and meaningful education reform hasn't happened.”

Not so surprisingly, the new way of evaluating teachers has not been welcomed by all. Thursday’s Wall Street Journal article on the subject quoted central New York school district teacher Jeff Peneston, "It all sounds fine in the big picture ... this is where I have a problem: Currently half of my colleagues are not tied to a state or national exam. Because of this split, it's a good example of just what a false idol these large standardized tests are."

The fact is New York State was long overdue for a new method of evaluating teachers. The agreement reached yesterday will help secure the millions of Race to the Top dollars in question, but more importantly this is a step in the right direction for New York’s kids.

Assessing the Feasibility of the Community College to Career Fund

by Domenic Giandomenico,

February 16, 2012

Included in President Obama’s FY 2013 budget is a new program, called “The Community College to Career Fund.” The new fund would spend $8 billion with a goal of training two million workers for a new career. Details are very sketchy at this point, but the general premise is to have community colleges partner with employers to train skilled workers for unfilled jobs. The goal is certainly a noble one, but questions certainly persist. The two prominent ones among them are “how will this be accomplished?” and “is it even feasible?”

The first question will likely be answered at some point in the future when the administration drops legislation. The second, however, certainly caught my attention. To achieve the goal of this fund, the program would have to spend no more than $4,000 per worker trained to reach two million skilled workers with $8 billion. This should be a reasonable expectation, but how does this square with the current reality?

According to the Department of Education’s National Center for Education Statistics, the 4,440 public institutions that confer either Associate’s degrees or certificates produced a grand total of approximately 1.36 million awards during the 2008-2009 academic year at a cost of nearly $49 billion. That comes to $35,925 per award—nearly nine times the President’s proposed rate of $4,000 per award.

Granted, this figure isn’t entirely fair, since a decent number of community college students transfer to four-year institutions, and thus, these schools are paying money towards completions somewhere else. However, in order to reach the goal of spending $4,000 per award, $43.5 billion of the $49 billion spent would have had to be used for transferring students. One doesn’t need to dive into the numbers any further to confidently determine that this did not happen. And for the record, the 2,705 for-profit institutions that also fall under this universe yielded more than 400,000 completions at a total expense of approximately $18,000 per student. The private sector is literally twice as efficient as the public sector in this regard.

However, one could argue that this program will presumably focus on certificate programs, and since it stands to reason that associate’s degrees cost more to produce than certificates, this isn’t necessarily the proper analysis. Therefore, perhaps it would be instructive to find out how public institutions that specialize solely in certificate programs fare. These 382 non-degree granting public institutions spent a combined $1.3 billion during the 2008-2009 academic year to produce 72,223 certificates. That comes to a price tag of more than $18,000 per certificate—still nearly quintupling the rate that would have to be achieved for the President to reach his goal under this program.

The bottom line is that the details of the Community College to Career Fund are going to have to present a different business model than the one current in place within our higher education system if it has any chance of being successful. This is also to say nothing of the question of whether or not community colleges even have the capacity to serve another two million students at a time when many of them have reported waitlists for certain programs. There is nothing in our recent history that suggests that our current higher education or workforce development systems can be anywhere near this productive or efficient. With or without the new program, this level of inefficiency will simply not get the job done. 

Ten States Granted No Child Left Behind Waivers

by Cecilia Retelle,

February 9, 2012

In the absence of congressional action to update the current version of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, known as No Child Left Behind (NCLB), President Obama announced that his administration will waive the central accountability provisions of NCLB. The waivers are intended to provide flexibility to states in exchange for committing to high standards and a system of accountability that sets goals and measures progress toward those goals. Since the announcement in September, 41 states have expressed interest in seeking waivers, and 11 applied during the first round.

The initial eleven waiver applications varied greatly by state, with various new deadlines and targets set by states and different interventions and consequences contemplated in each application. In addition, states added new measures to the accountability system such as history, science, and writing assessments as well as SAT and ACT scores.

Today, President Obama announced the approval of ten state waivers (Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, Oklahoma, and Tennessee). In the announcement, President Obama affirmed that “the goals behind No Child Left Behind were admirable, and President Bush deserves credit for that. Higher standards are the right goal. Accountability is the right goal. Closing the achievement gap is the right goal. And we’ve got to stay focused on those goals.”

Because the waivers limit federal accountability measures, the U.S. Department of Education must hold the states accountable for assurances made, or otherwise retract their waiver. It is also imperative that the business community guarantees the promises made are kept at a high standard. In the coming months the Chamber’s Institute for a Competitive Workforce will host roundtables in affected states with Chamber leaders and education policy experts to fully educate and engage the business community on the impact of the waivers.

For more detailed information about each of the state waivers, visit the U.S. Department of Education’s website.

Does the “Accountability Juggernaut” Threaten to Pound Higher Ed into Homogeneity

by Domenic Giandomenico,

February 9, 2012

In the wake of President Obama’s announcement that institutions of higher education were officially “on notice,” the typical and predictable fear mongering began. David L. Warren, president of the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities warned of “incredible consequences” (subscription required). He dramatically throws down the gauntlet, stating that if the Department of Education chooses to regulate "the issues that fundamentally determine our independence—our missions, our curriculum, the basis on which we admit and graduate students," he will oppose it.

Robert Steinberg penned a lengthy, but much more respectful open letter to President Obama. In it, he makes 10 requests, including one to “respect the differences of college missions and goals.” Steinberg says, “I worry that a one-size-fits-all measure of outcome quality will hamper colleges and the students in them from optimally achieving their own individual goals.”

Even Diane Ravitch joined in on the act, calling on college presidents to resist the “accountability juggernaut”. Considering public higher education has existed for more than 200 years and we still have not had any meaningful system of accountability, this must be the slowest moving “juggernaut” ever forged.

The presence of Ravitch’s trademark hyperbole in the debate is none too surprising, since higher education now seems to be reading from the same playbook that K–12 has employed for some time. It all leads me to wonder, however, about one of the common refrains—that institutional diversity was far too valuable to destroy in the name of accountability. I asked myself two questions: first, when it comes to the kinds of things that we’d like for institutions to be held accountable for—such as student improvement in basic writing, math, communications, and critical thinking skills, along with graduation rates and employment outcomes—just how different are these institutions? And secondly, how exactly would measuring for outcomes either be a bad thing or lead to the horrific homogenization that’s been prophesized?

I began my investigation in earnest, checking the websites of 50 different public universities—one from each of the 50 states—to examine the general education degree requirements. One would assume that if institutional diversity existed at a level that would preclude common, independently-run assessments for basic skills, such as writing, mathematics, and critical thinking that you would find at least some variation of requirements in this sampling. I looked for three things: 1) Does the school require at least one writing course? 2) Does the school require at least one quantitative reasoning course? 3) Does the school make an immediately apparent statement of any variety about the need to develop a student’s communications, critical thinking, or analytical skills?

Unsurprisingly, all 50 schools in the sample do indeed require at least one writing course and one quantitative course. Despite cries of institutional diversity, there are no signs of it to be found here. There wasn’t much deviation from the script when it came to making a statement about the value of communications, critical thinking or analytical skills, as 36 out of 50 schools did make an immediately apparent value statement of this nature. Of the 14 that didn’t, I didn’t find any statement of any kind related to general education—just a list of requirements. That doesn’t mean such declarations don’t exist, just that I didn’t devote the kind of time required to make heads or tails of the jumbled mess they called a website.

Mind you, this was not an exhaustive study by any means. Still, I think we can safely conclude that even in a world that values institutional diversity, the vast majority of its inhabitants still greatly values the same basic skills employers do, and make it a point to impart them to their students.

This brings us back to the original questions—how is one school really different from another with respect to the kind of accountability the public deserves and how exactly would common assessments further homogenize higher education any more than it has already homogenized itself?

The answer to the first question is quite clear—for the intents and purposes of the discussion on accountability, there is virtually no difference between what schools claim to value from one institution to the next. And why would there be? Show me a college that doesn’t value producing students that are competent writers and adequate thinkers, and I’ll show you a school that shouldn’t exist. The answer to the second question about common assessments is far from clear, unfortunately. It doesn’t seem that it would tangibly change any general education curriculum. It might force schools to take general education a bit more seriously, perhaps prompting them to put better instructors in those classes or not holding said classes with groups of upwards of 500 students at a time. It might push professors to be a bit more rigorous in their demands of students. It might prod students to try harder in these classes, knowing the reputation of their school—and the value of their future degree along with it—weighs in the balance. Yet I think it would take a rather vivid imagination to believe that somehow measuring something that every school already does is going to drastically change anything or strip away the ability of one school to differentiate itself from another.

Finally, since we’re already playing with arguments held over from K–12 schools, perhaps we can be informed by what’s happened in that sector since No Child Left Behind became law. Despite cries of homogenization there, there seem to be no shortages of schools that are proud of their unique programs, and no shortages of new programs and initiatives. In fact, when the Department of Education announced their Investing in Innovation (i3) grant program as part of the stimulus, they received nearly 600 applications from schools and nonprofit organizations touting their fresh approaches to education. Anecdotally, I do quite a bit of travel around the country and regularly receive requests to go tour promising schools who all believe that they’re doing something better and something different than what anyone else is doing. This is all to say that it’s rather to difficult to argue that accountability in K–12 education has had any meaningful, negative impact on institutional diversity.

At the end of the day, the “accountability juggernaut” is simply not going to make every public school in the nation vanilla. It’s ludicrous to claim otherwise. It’ll take a lot more than caring about student outcomes and measuring what schools are already claiming to be doing to make something that colossal happen.

The Future of Business Depends on Real Higher Education Data

by Jaimie Matthews,

February 3, 2012

In my former life as an admission counselor at my alma mater, I dreaded the release day for college rankings. I was not supposed to care—like many other institutions of higher learning, my college expressed its commitment to not use the rankings as a form of publicity, but continued to supply the requested data. But I did care. I cared not only because of pride for my school but I also knew that prospective students strongly consider rankings in their decision. I once asked a student why he decided on another college over ours, and his response was simply, “They were ranked higher.” The difference in the institutions’ ranking was just two places. Even if they are not the deciding factor for a student’s choice, rankings can play a significant role in decision-making, and what matters to the consumer has a bearing on the provider.

Recently, a scandal broke at Claremont McKenna College—a highly reputable and respected institution—in which a senior administrator reported false data for the institution’s incoming class SAT scores for each of the last six years. These numbers were reported to numerous ranking systems, as well as the U.S. Department of Education. SAT scores have a weight of 7.5% on the U.S. News & World Report’s standings, arguably the best known ranking system.

This is not the first instance of false reporting to improve rankings, and surely it will not be the last. Whether or not Claremont McKenna moves down a slot or two as a result of the scandal is not really the point. While I do not condone the inflated numbers I have to admit the first thing that came to mind was, “Really—SAT scores?” Most colleges will tell you ten points on a standardized test are unlikely to be the “make or break” factor for admission or rejection—is that really something worth going out on a ledge over?

What this scandal clearly illustrates is the need for higher education consumers to have access to outcome-based data on relevant issues like graduation rates, how long it takes to graduate, and what happens after a student leaves the institution—these are the kinds of statistics we want driving prospective students’ decisions. While some ranking systems do use outcome-based data like graduation rates, it is a problem when we can’t provide consumers additional student outcomes such as job placement rates, licensure passage rates, or graduate school acceptance rates. Prospective students would not be the only beneficiaries of this information. Imagine how institutions could use the data to recognize programmatic shortcomings and virtues; the business community could use the data as a tool to recruit students from particular programs that have proven results with their graduates.

In the summer of 2012, the U.S. Chamber’s Institute for a Competitive Workforce, in collaboration with American Enterprise Institute and the Brookings Institution, will release the latest report in the Leaders & Laggards series focusing on public postsecondary education in the United States. Given the incredible amount of attention higher education has experienced in recent months, it is our hope that even more prominence will be placed on output measures versus input measures. The report will include such metrics as outcome information, transparency, and cost effectiveness. Let’s refocus our attention to what really should matter to our students—to walk across the stage, diploma-in-hand, prepared to meet the needs of today’s workforce.

Veterans Deserve Better

by Cheryl Oldham,

January 31, 2012

While the military does provide a great deal of training to our troops, many veterans find out that not all of those skills or certifications are immediately transferable when they return to civilian life. Obtaining training and gaining experience as a combat medic, for instance, does not immediately make one qualified or certified to be a civilian nurse. Many military mechanics often need more training in order to find employment in commercial settings. As such, most veterans find themselves in need of more education when their service to our nation ends.

Knowing this, a new bill introduced by Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee Chairman Tom Harkin (D-IA) becomes all the less defensible. The bill would cut the percentage of funding that for-profit institutions of higher education receive from the federal government and include funding that comes from military sources under that cap, which is currently excluded from the calculation.

Enacting either of these provisions into law would significantly drain the pool of opportunities afforded to veterans. For-profit institutions would be forced to severely limit the number of veterans they serve in order to qualify for future federal funding and sustain their operations. Since many public community colleges and four-year institutions are unable to adequately provide an education for all students, this action would force many of our veterans to forgo an education altogether. And given the many virtual and flexible learning programs offered by for-profit institutions that are unavailable through public resources, this significantly impacts the ability of active duty military officers to continue their education while making the ultimate sacrifice for our nation.

Furthermore, Senators Harkin and Durbin have continually questioned the quality of the education provided to not only our veterans, but to all Americans. The only evidence they offer are graduation rates, which say absolutely nothing about educational quality. College graduation rates are heavily impacted by a wide variety of factors, including student transfer, dropping out due to family circumstances, and the need for remediation. All of those factors are amplified at both for-profit institutions and at public community colleges, who typically serve our most at-risk populations. Unless Senators Harkin and Durbin have access to some information that no one else in the world does, it’s utterly impossible to objectively determine the quality of the education provided by any institution of higher education based on graduation rates alone, regardless of whether we’re talking about the University of Michigan or the University of Phoenix.

Simply put, our veterans deserve the opportunity to learn in the manner that best suits their needs. They earned that right when they laid their lives on the line. Denying them this opportunity at a time when our nation desperately needs hard working, skilled employees in order to expand our economy is nonsensical. All of this can only lead one to the conclusion that this bill is nothing less than a narrowly-tailored piece of legislation aimed solely at harming for-profit institutions, rather than advancing or protecting our nation’s best interests.

The Devil is Always in the Details

by Domenic Giandomenico,

January 27, 2012

In a speech today at the University of Michigan, President Obama discussed his latest proposals to reshape higher education, which he outlined earlier this week in his State of the Union address. The proposals follow three key themes: innovation, transparency, and keeping tuition costs down.

That the President is finally targeting the perpetually-skyrocketing tuition costs themselves, rather than just giving schools yet another green light to raise tuition in the form of raising Pell Grants is an idea that is well overdue, and heartily welcomed. Colleges and universities have done exceptionally little in the way of taking steps to reduce costs over the years, choosing instead to pass costs directly onto the students when legislatures refuse their demands for more money. Beyond that, schools have almost brazenly eschewed the cost savings that could be earned through innovation of any flavor—technological or otherwise—or have used those savings for things other than reducing tuition.

Of course, the devil with such proposals is always in the details. While one certainly didn’t expect to get those details out of a stump speech, left unsaid is how exactly the funding formulas for programs such as Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants (SEOG), Perkins Loans, and Work Study programs would be implemented. It’s notoriously difficult to codify measures that incentivize the proper spending of money without stumbling onto horrific unintended consequences. If the first attempt fails miserably—or is rendered so unworkable as to be without meaning—the realities of the political process and the power of the vast network of higher education lobbyists will likely make this the only attempt.

At the end of the day, however, it does not stand to reason that a one-time award via Race to the Top will keep tuition costs down. Tweaks to federal funding formulas might do a little to change that, but the reality is that Pell Grants form the lion’s share federal funding for higher education. The SEOG, Perkins Loans, and Work Study programs combined (about $3.2 billion) only amount to less than 10% of the funding that Pell Grants (about $32.3 billion) provide institutions via students, and amounts to a paltry portion of their overall revenues. Any federal effort aimed at lowering college tuition has to begin with changes to the Pell Grants and other forms of federal financial aid if it wants to be effective.

Furthermore, doesn’t it seem a bit backward to offer a billion dollars in rewards for reducing costs? After all, if the argument goes that schools could keep tuition down, but they are just unwilling to do so for various reasons, how does offering more money help the situation? Let’s say the awards under the new Race to the Top were to be used strictly for capital improvements. Couldn’t the school have theoretically raised that money simply by cutting those aforementioned unnecessary expenses and simply left tuition in a state of stasis? There would seem to be an immense moral hazard lurking somewhere within these details, but we won’t know the full story until we know more about the rules of the competition.

Then there are the efforts at improving transparency to students and parents. The proposed “College Scorecard” will hopefully look a lot like something we’ve proposed in the past. The President is also proposing to begin collecting earnings and employment information for colleges, which is another step in the right direction. Yet while the word “quality” gets tossed around quite a bit, absent are any proposals for actually measuring the education that students receive from an institution and reporting it to the public.

The bottom line is simple: Keeping tuition low while keeping education quality high requires maintaining proper incentives for university presidents and trustee. At the end of the day, students want to go to great schools and donors want to give their money to great schools. The problem, of course, is that no one can currently define a great school by any objective standard. This creates all forms of perverse incentives to spend money wildly on things that have nothing to do with the quality of the education. If you want to improve educational quality, you first have to measure it. Only then will students make choices based on things other than whether or not the school has a rock climbing wall. Only then will donors realize that their contributions are being sent to a lackluster institution. Once those sources of revenue start drying up, only then will educational quality become a priority.

Finally, if the President really wants to ignite innovation in higher education, he doesn’t need to offer $55 million to accomplish that goal. He can simply start by allowing our for-profit institutions to do what they do best and to encourage the non-profit schools to follow their lead. Unfortunately, he continues to stifle these innovation engines through needless regulation, which is clearly a regressive approach.

Overall, however, the President’s proposals could be a step in the right direction, if implemented carefully. On the other hand, until we know more, they could also amount to little more than throwing more money down a hole.

State of the Union and Education

by Mark D’Alessio,

January 25, 2012

So it’s the day after the President’s much anticipated State of the Union address and everyone in town (and around the county, for that matter) is discussing the high and low points. Since we are in an election year, or what U.S. Chamber President and CEO Tom Donohue affectionately calls the “silly season”, a considerable amount of the President’s message was framed through a political lens in an effort to persuade the public that his vision is the right vision for the country moving forward.

As the U.S. Chamber’s Education and Workforce affiliate, the Institute for a Competitive Workforce (ICW), we were interested to hear the President’s plan to improve our nation’s education and workforce training systems. All in all, President Obama’s remarks on education and the workforce clocked in at around five minutes. I was following #edsotu on Twitter last night to get a sense of what the education community thought. The general consensus was disappointment. I saw comments like “no mention of No Child Left Behind?” or “what about Race to the Top?” or “that’s it?”

The U.S. Department of Labor estimates that there are 3.2 million job openings in the U.S. Time and time again, we at ICW hear from businesses, both large and small, that they can’t fill available jobs due to the unskilled American workforce. Last night, President Obama called this “inexcusable.” We agree.

The President did highlight a public-private partnership by Siemens and Central Piedmont Community College in Charlotte, North Carolina. Siemens designed courses to give students the skills needed to work in the company’s nearby gas turbine factory. This is a great example of how the business community can become directly involved in education and workforce development to close the nation’s skills gap. The President asked Congress to “give more community colleges the resources they need to become community career centers—places that teach people skills that local businesses are looking for right now” and to join him in “a national commitment to train two million Americans with skills that will lead directly to a job.” He did not mention how this will be funded—I guess the devil is in the details.

On the K-12 front, the President was surprisingly brief. He mentioned rewarding the best teachers and giving schools the flexibility to teach with “creativity and passion; to stop teaching to the test; and to replace teachers who just aren’t helping kids learn.” One interesting recommendation he made was for all states to require kids to stay in school until they graduate or turn eighteen in an effort to stem the drop out crisis in the country. It’ll be interesting to see how the education community responds to this.

Finally, the President made a couple of comments on the rising cost of college tuition, but didn’t offer any solutions outside of extending the tuition tax credit. Hopefully, he will expand on this in the near future.

In this election cycle, education is not going to be a top talking point of President Obama’s or whoever the Republican nominee is and this is unfortunate given education’s vital role in lowering unemployment. Soaring debt, deficits, and a fragile economy are what voters care about. It will be up organizations like ICW to continue to call for accountability, flexibility, innovation, and school choice to help move the needle in education reform. And there is nothing “silly” about that.

Building a High-Skilled Workforce

by Sean Hackbarth,

January 23, 2012

The New York Times digs into why the iPhone isn’t manufactured in the United States. From their reporting we find one reason is that China has a source of skilled workers that could be put to work quickly:

Another critical advantage for Apple was that China provided engineers at a scale the United States could not match. Apple’s executives had estimated that about 8,700 industrial engineers were needed to oversee and guide the 200,000 assembly-line workers eventually involved in manufacturing iPhones. The company’s analysts had forecast it would take as long as nine months to find that many qualified engineers in the United States.

In China, it took 15 days.

American is faced with a skills gap. As The Atlantic’s Jordan Weissmann writes, “The problem isn't a lack of elite graduates. We have those. It's our unskilled working class.”

To fix that, last month, Domenic Giandomenico at the Chamber’s Institute for a Competitive Workforce suggested an updated workforce development system “that actually serves as a dual-client system, utilizes workforce data to guide its programs, enables regional collaboration, eliminates sequencing of services, is fully compatible with and non-duplicative of other workforce development programs.”

And earlier this month, Domenic suggested more transparency in the costs and benefits of college degrees. He writes,

If we really want a more market-driven approach to guiding students towards in-demand occupations, showing the stark reality of their choices in black-and-white would likely be a good way to do it. If they still want to take the plunge, mazel tov. The choice will still be theirs to make. But in many other situations, they might see the data and take another path.

Because of the higher productivity of American workers, analysts at the Boston Consulting Group see the economy on the verge of an “insourcing” trend. Training a quality workforce will be imperative to make sure that come to fruition.

Applauding an Open Mind

by Domenic Giandomenico,

January 20, 2012

The push for innovation and technology becomes a third rail issue for far too many within academia. Many traditionalists feel the need to pump the brakes and keep fighting for the status quo, even in the face of the growing demands of a global, 21st century society.

So it was with great pleasure that I read Dr. Joshua Kim’s piece at Inside Higher Ed. Kim is a self-avowed “academic conservative”, who prefers the world he chose to live in when he started his career. Yet he acknowledges the need for “academic radicals” who continue to push the envelope in changing the higher education experience. He even goes so far as to appreciate the role of for-profit institutions, saying, “…it is the mix of for-profits and non-profits (sometimes working together) that makes our education sector so vital.”

I heartily welcome Dr. Kim’s open-minded, even-handed approach to the emerging innovations in higher education. While he might disagree with ICW’s stance that we need to fully embrace new technologies and other disruptive innovations if we’re to meet the challenges of educating a 21st century workforce (which you can read about in our report, College 2.0: Transforming Higher Education through Greater Innovation and Smarter Regulation), it’s refreshing to hear a bit of acceptance and tolerance for those who strive to keep our nation’s higher education system globally competitive. The debate would be far more robust if all discussions were this civil.

Less Draconian Ways to Close the Skills Gap

by Domenic Giandomenico,

January 9, 2012

Ben Wildavsky’s excellent column in the Chronicle of Higher Education last week examines China’s decision to cut back on degree programs that don’t bear a student good odds of landing a job through an American prism, wondering whether or not the practice is right for the United States. Ultimately, Wildavsky argues that what’s necessary is for a better flow of information to students, so they more fully understand the ramifications of selecting a major.

It’s a rather timely suggestion, coinciding with an MSNBC article about a married couple—both public law librarians—who struggle to pay down $150,000 worth of student loan debt on their salary. More importantly, it coincides with the release of the new Georgetown Center on Education and the Workforce report, Hard Times, which concludes that the choice of a college major substantially affects employability and earnings, among many other things. It’s an excellent report and a must read for prospective students, their parents, and policy wonks alike.

Wildavsky is right, of course, that the problem is better solved through transparency. Congress recently passed a law forcing credit card companies to show you exactly what the long term ramifications are for paying down an existing balance using minimum payments. Some counties make restaurants put calorie counts next to their menu options. I see little reason why a similar device couldn’t be used for college students selecting their programs of study. It could include factors such as tuition, fees, and other “real” costs of attending school; the typical salary and lifetime earnings of a person earning a degree in that field of study; the likelihood of actually finding a job with that degree; an estimate of monthly student loan payments; and what your net income would look like after typical housing and other non-discretionary expenses at prevailing local rates.

In fact, here’s rough view of how it might look. For the example, I used an actual private university in California and cobbled the information below from various websites:

|Full tuition, fees, board, and other costs of attendance for four years | $ 231,488 |

|Average financial aid per student for four years | $ 145,164 |

|Cost incurred directly by student | $ 86,324 |

|Cumulative payments on student loans | $ 194,696 |

|Average salary for students earning a Bachelor’s degree in psychology | $ 27,000 |

|Average net monthly pay after taxes | $ 1,780 |

|Monthly student loan payments ($86,324 over 25 years) | $ 489 |

|Median monthly rent | $ 1,397 |

|Average monthly utility bill | $ 196 |

|Net discretionary income after student loans, rent, and utilities to be | $ (302) |

|used for groceries, clothing, transportation, medical and dental insurance,| |

|other debts, and all other purchases. | |

It’s one thing for a student to say that they love psychology and don’t care about the money. It’s another thing altogether when you show them that they’ll be lucky to be eating ramen noodles for the foreseeable future. You could even make it a web-based tool, allowing students to adjust how much student loan debt they’re going to take on, or where they plan on living after college. If we really want a more market-driven approach to guiding students towards in-demand occupations, showing the stark reality of their choices in black-and-white would likely be a good way to do it. If they still want to take the plunge, mazel tov. The choice will still be theirs to make. But in many other situations, they might see the data and take another path. That’s a good result for everyone, and one that takes very little effort or resources to obtain.

Fortunately, correcting this problem doesn’t require draconian, Chinese measures. A lot of information and transparency to students, combined with a little common sense in public policy, should get the job done. Unfortunately, transparency and common sense are commodities in short supply these days.

Lessons of No Child Left Behind 10 Years Later

by Margaret Spellings,

January 6, 2012

This Sunday, January 8th, will mark the ten year anniversary of President George W. Bush signing the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) into law. Over the past decade we have learned a lot about the importance of collecting data, being accountable for the success of all students, and setting targets. We have also seen multiple attempts to reauthorize the law only to watch them die before reaching the President’s desk. This anniversary serves as a reminder that critical information has been gathered as a result of this law being passed, but we also need to take what we have learned and improve it through reauthorization.

Like it or hate it, the law has been a game-changer. It’s opened the public’s eyes about the hard work that needs to be done to address underperforming school systems that are jeopardizing the future success of countless students. It wasn’t until NCLB that the U.S. was forced to face the reality that not all students within a “good” school were actually doing well. For decades prior to NCLB, our educational system operated in the dark. Not anymore. That’s the good news.

The bad news is that what we know is far from encouraging. While significant progress has been made, there is still an unacceptable achievement gap between minority and white students. For a nation as prosperous and strong as America, it’s a disgrace that only 75 percent of students, and only half of all minority students, graduate from high school on time. What’s even more shocking is the ongoing and persistent complaining by some adults in the system that it’s simply unrealistic to expect kids to read and cipher on grade level! This is a modest standard that many of these same people argue now needs to be raised higher.

Teaching our young students the basics is the bare minimum we should be providing to put them on the path to being successful, productive citizens. I have yet to meet a parent who says that it is acceptable for his or her child not to be on grade level. Most will tell you that they don’t want to wait the twelve years that the law gave schools to get all kids on grade level. As well, I have yet to meet a CEO who is looking to hire graduates without the necessary skills or knowledge to be successful on the job. It’s ludicrous for Americans to think that continuing down a path of low expectations is going to net the kind of gains we need to stay competitive.

The question is whether policymakers will continue to side with parents and employers who believe the school systems they finance through their hard-earned tax dollars have an obligation to educate their children, or cave in to the teachers’ unions and other powerful special interests who are willing to write off some of the nation’s neediest children, believing they are simply too hard to educate. If it’s the latter, America will be the loser.

The time has come for policymakers to face the music. We need to pick up the pace of improvement in our schools. Instead of the current "pass/fail" approach in the law today, states should be allowed to use a grading system based on solid data to identify which schools need a major overhaul—something most were not in a position to do when the law was written—and which schools need just minor improvement. The law should also identify and reward our most effective teachers who are doing the hard work every day to raise student achievement and close the stubborn achievement gap. And the law should move us into the 21st century by promoting innovative options for parents, including online learning, charter schools, and other public and private choice options that allow students to get the immediate help they need to succeed.

Finally, though in the last decade NCLB has become a popular political punching bag, we must also recognize the students that have finally been counted. African American children, Hispanic children, low-income children, students with special needs, and those whose first language is not English are no longer able to be hidden in the averages. We are able to see just how poorly they were being served in low-performing schools, as well as schools that were often viewed as high-performing. As we reflect on the significant strides that have been made and the focus on low-income and minority students required under NCLB, some would suggest that we go back to the time when we ignored the needs of a vast number of students across the country.

The business community has joined with the civil rights, disability, and education reform communities in opposition to a retreat from accountability and an abandonment of our national commitment to the success of every child. So much more has yet to be done. As my friend and colleague Tom Donohue said, “To those who seek to undermine, delay, or obstruct reform, I say your time is over. You are on the wrong side of history. The status quo cannot be defended—it is indefensible. Parents, businesses, and more and more teachers reach that conclusion every single day. So it's time to get real, get serious, and get busy." I couldn’t agree more.

Chicago Mayor Gets Halfway There

by Domenic Giandomenico,

December 20, 2011

Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel recognizes the insanity and the importance of our ongoing skills gap, pointing out that his city has a 10 percent unemployment rate while 100,000 jobs continue to go unfilled. He is absolutely right when he says “it’s unacceptable that at a time of high unemployment, more than 80 percent of manufacturers say they can't find skilled workers to hire.” I also agree with him when he says, “We need to guarantee that the diploma he or she earns has economic value.” Overall, he sends an excellent, necessary message in his Wall Street Journal column.

Emanuel, however, needs to take it a little further, as he stops just short of recognizing the depth of the problems facing his city and our nation as a whole. First of all, it’s not just community colleges that have lost credibility—four-year institutions have damaged their reputation as well. People often wonder why companies look for employees with higher levels of education than one would normally expect a job to require. Yet when you read something like Academically Adrift and learn that 36 percent of students "did not demonstrate any significant improvement in learning" over four years of college, you begin to realize that companies aren’t being unrealistic in their demands – they’re just looking for someone who might actually be able to do the job. Simply put, we need to be far more skeptical in our public policy about the quality being provided by all institutions of higher education, regardless of their pedigrees or the length of their degree programs.

Beyond that, Emanuel’s call to action to modernize our community college system is incomplete. It’s not that community colleges don’t need a serious makeover—they certainly do. It’s just perplexing that he would leave out private sector institutions and ignore the innovations they’ve made in the higher education and workforce development areas. Increasingly, corporations of all sizes are viewing private sector education institutions as having far more credibility and responsiveness than the community colleges. It’s well past time that public officials like Emanuel start to recognize the potential that these schools have to offer.

Ultimately, to solve the skills crisis facing our nation, we cannot afford to leave any options off the table, not when 3.2 million unfilled jobs is projected to expand to around 7 million by 2018. We have to take a comprehensive look at the education being offered by both two- and four-year institutions. We have to modernize our delivery models, our regulatory and statutory structures, our business models, and the curriculum itself. And we have to embrace the competition and innovation that private sector colleges have infused into the higher education system.

Holiday Wish List for Higher Education and Workforce Development

by Domenic Giandomenico,

December 15, 2011

It’s everybody’s favorite time of year again, and I’m not talking about the day that Congress finally realizes it has to pass an appropriations bill. I’m talking about the Holidays! Christmas! Chanukah! And more importantly, the gifts that come with them! We at the Institute for a Competitive Workforce (ICW) have put together our wish list and FedExed it to the North Pole (we’re a little too big to sit in Santa’s lap). To help everyone get in the holiday spirit, we’ve decided to give you a sneak peek at what we’ve asked for this year for our higher education and workforce development systems.

A Shiny New Workforce Development System –It’s been nearly 14 years since we’ve reauthorized the Workforce Investment Act. Trying to get some quality skills training and job placement out of this system is about as easy as it is to play Angry Birds on one of these:

Clearly, it’s time to upgrade, and we’re hoping that Santa sees our sad, brick-like cell phone and aging workforce development system and decides it’s time to bring us a new one. Hopefully it’ll be one that actually serves as a dual-client system, utilizes workforce data to guide its programs, enables regional collaboration, eliminates sequencing of services, is fully compatible with and non-duplicative of other workforce development programs, and has an 8.0 megapixel camera with optical zoom.

A Better Way to Compare the Educational Quality of Colleges and Universities – Everyone complains about the U.S. News and World Report’s annual rankings, and I think they’d even be the first to tell you that there’s some fairness to that. It’s easy to see why—their latest rankings use assessments by administrators at peer institutions; retention of students; faculty resources; student selectivity; financial resources; alumni giving; high school counselor ratings of colleges; and "graduation rate performance" as their metrics for educational quality. I don’t even recommend diving deeper into the methodology. It’s a nightmare full of perverse incentives for schools that have nothing to do with imparting affordable, high-quality degrees to as many students as possible.

I say all of this not to bash U.S. News—at least they are doing something, which is more than I can say for most anyone else. And they’re doing the best they can, using pretty much the only tools at their disposal for making such a comparison, which is the real issue here—that postsecondary institutions are about as transparent as the Great Wall of China. If you want to know whether or not students are actually learning at a given institution, you have to conduct a lengthy independent investigation on your own like Richard Arum and Josipa Roksa did for their book, Academically Adrift. (Spoiler alert: most students aren’t learning.)

So what we’d really like under our tree this year are some X-Ray glasses, so we can see behind the iron curtain and find out what colleges and universities are really doing with all of our tuition and taxpayer money. Failing that, we’d like to see institutions of higher education be much more vigilant about providing the public with information about their outputs and measure exactly what kind of value they’re adding to their students in return for the annual cost equivalent of a mid-sized sedan.

A New Business Model for Higher Education - Speaking of technology, there are a lot of great new toys in the world of education, from distance learning to digital textbooks to competency based degree programs. One might be lulled into believing that there’s been a lot of innovation in higher ed, and there has to some degree. What we haven’t seen, however, is the kind of disruptive innovation you would expect from such a technological revolution. Today’s technology could lead to any number of exciting new developments, such as having a school that unbundles instruction from evaluation in order to provide degrees at lower costs. Instead of using the technology to deliver the same education that’s always existed, we’d like to see someone create an entirely new concept aimed at enhancing quality and productivity. Santa’s putting his MBA from North Pole Polytech to good use and is weighing all the possibilities that could truly lead to a breakthrough. Hopefully, his sleigh doesn’t get tangled in needless, counterproductive regulations…

Of course, if Santa doesn’t happen to leave these presents under the tree, ICW is prepared to do what any good boy or girl would: go out and get them ourselves. Since we’re a skeptical bunch, we’re already hard at work getting ready for a busy 2012. Next summer, we’ll be unveiling our first Leaders & Laggards report on postsecondary education, and in September, we’ll be holding our first Help Wanted Summit, devoted to finding a way to close the 3.2 million jobs skills gap that’s crippling our nation. So if you don’t get the gifts you’re looking for this Christmas or Chanukah, we hope you’ll join us in 2012 as we go shopping for a better, more productive higher education and workforce development system! 

MEDIA

Support Turns to Opposition on No Child Left Behind Reform

by Corey Mitchell, Star Tribune

February 7, 2012

WASHINGTON - Rep. John Kline, R-Minn., still wants to see that no child is left behind in school. But times have changed for Kline and for the education reform movement that has listed hundreds of Minnesota schools as failing.

A year ago, the Second District congressman figured to be a catalyst guiding the overhaul of the No Child Left Behind Act, the federal mandate to increase standards and accountability in public education.

"No Child Left Behind, left as it is, is not working," said Kline, the dean of Minnesota's four Republicans in the U.S. House. "Everybody wants to change the law."

Broad support has given way to broad opposition. Minnesota is among a first wave of states seeking waivers to escape the law's key demands.

President Obama did not mention the decade-old law in his State of the Union speech when discussing his administration's education goals.

The bills Kline introduced in January would cut or consolidate dozens of education programs, give districts greater flexibility in how they use federal funds and drop federal requirements for teacher qualifications. He's eyeing change before 2014, the year the No Child Left Behind Act will require every public school student in the country to pass reading and math tests.

Last week a coalition of 38 business and civil rights organizations, unions and reform groups banded together to oppose Kline's latest efforts to revamp the law. The group said the proposed changes would shortchange minorities, low-income students, English-language learners and students with disabilities. Another group -- the Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics Education Coalition -- has also attacked Kline's legislation, saying it would devalue science education.

One thing Kline and his critics agree on: The law that passed with overwhelming bipartisan support during the George W. Bush presidency has fallen short of its goal to improve education for all children.

The Senate education committee, led by U.S. Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, produced a bipartisan bill last fall and has urged Kline's committee to do the same. The Senate bill prescribes changes similar to those backed by Obama and U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan, who will grant waivers to states seeking relief from the school reform law. The states must commit to reforms that include restructuring low-performing schools and adopting evaluation standards for teachers and principals. Minnesota should learn by mid-month if it has been granted one.

But four years after the law was to be renewed, even Kline doubts much will happen in 2012, a year expected to be plagued by partisan gridlock in a Congress readying for re-election.

"We're going to try to get this done in Congress," he said.

There is little chance that will happen this year, said Dan Domenech, executive director of the Alexandria, Va.-based American Association of School Administrators.

"The presidential politics are very much the predominant factor," said Domenech, a supporter of Kline's bills. "Under normal circumstances, it would not be a far reach for the House and Senate to come together. But not this year."

Waiting on a Waiver

State leaders are confident the U.S. Department of Education will grant Minnesota a waiver, said Charlene Briner, chief of staff for state Education Commissioner Brenda Cassellius.

The waiver could lift some penalties for hundreds of schools labeled as failing under No Child Left Behind.

Last fall, the state Department of Education reported that almost half of Minnesota's schools failed to meet the law's standards. The law has forced schools and districts that repeatedly fall short to shuffle staff, provide free after-school tutoring and bus students to better-performing schools. Cassellius has said the penalties are costly, ineffective and proof that the state needs a waiver.

Under Minnesota's proposed system the state would focus resources on the bottom 15 to 20 percent of schools. All schools would have to show improved individual student growth, higher graduation rates and a shrinking achievement gap between white and nonwhite students. Schools also would still be judged on student math and reading scores.

Kline has condemned the waiver program since Obama and Duncan announced it last year.

Opposing Kline's bills are the NAACP, National Council of La Raza, U.S. Chamber of Commerce and 50CAN, the 50-state Campaign for Achievement Now -- the model for Minnesota-based school reform group MinnCAN.

"The students we represent cannot withstand the risk of Congress allowing states to return to old habits -- aiming low and abandoning children deemed too difficult or inconsequential to educate," their Jan. 24 letter read, in part.

In a statement, Kline rebuffed the charge.

"I am disappointed critics have chosen to disregard this responsible proposal and vilify the motives of state and local leaders -- leaders who have been clamoring for exactly the kind of flexibility and opportunity provided in the Student Success Act," he responded in a statement.

The STEM coalition -- including the National Association of Manufacturers, Microsoft Corp. and National Science Teachers Association -- is upset that Kline's legislation would drop current federal science testing requirements and dismantle a $150 million federal math and science education program. Kline's proposal "sends a powerful, negative and unambiguous signal to U.S. schools and the public that science ... is no longer a national priority," read a portion of the group's letter.

Kline defended the proposed cuts, citing a study by the Government Accountability Office that found significant overlap and poor oversight in federal math and science programs.

"In recent years, the federal government has dedicated significant resources to developing STEM programs, yet taxpayers have seen little evidence that these programs are actually working," he said in a statement.

Cassellius, through a spokesman, declined comment on Kline's bills.

Like Kline, Education Minnesota President Tom Dooher supports local, rather than federal, reform and acknowledges that No Child Left Behind is long overdue for an overhaul, but he noted the mounting opposition to the proposed legislation.

"There are obviously some serious questions being raised about this bill," Dooher said.

A Skills Shortage or Unrealistic Expectations?

by Susan Seitel, The Huffington Post

December 2, 2011

If you missed the recent radio debate between Peter Cappelli and Cheryl Oldham (Minnesota Public Radio's MidMorning Show with Kerri Miller) you missed a mind-expanding 45 minutes! The challenging subject: The job market. Is there really a skills shortage or do companies have unrealistic expectations? Why aren't they getting the employees they need? The two experts offered their opinions, and several callers added theirs.

Cappelli, as you may remember, is director of the Center for Human Resources at The Wharton School and professor of education at the University of Pennsylvania. Oldham is with the Institute for a Competitive Workforce, part of the U.S. Chamber.

They both agree that companies can't seem to find the employees they're looking for. But with 13.9 million unemployed, why not?

Here's where they part ways. Oldham says it absolutely is a skills gap; potential employees just aren't qualified for the job (and one employer who called in added an exclamation mark to that argument when she said they've interviewed people who had no grasp of even basic grammar).

Cappelli says it's the companies themselves that are the culprits -- the source of the problem. In almost no cases are they looking for people right out of school who need training -- the affordable candidates. Instead they're looking for candidates with three to five years of specific job experience -- the unaffordable ones.

He first said it publicly in the Wall Street Journal in October, where he wrote,

With an abundance of workers to choose from, employers are demanding more of job candidates than ever before. They want prospective workers to be able to fill a role right away, without any training or ramp-up time. In other words, to get a job, you have to have that job already. It's a Catch-22 situation for workers--and it's hurting companies and the economy.

Employers, he says, need to stop blaming the education system for the worker shortage, start hiring, and spend more money on training.

While Oldham countered that ASTD says employers are spending between $60 and $100 billion annually on training, Cappelli argued with that statement. The Bureau of Labor Statistics, he said, suggests the average employee gets about five hours of training every two years. Apprenticeship programs have almost completely disappeared, and while potential managers used to get about 18 months of management training, that's a thing of the past, almost completely gone now. Yes, companies that see employees as an asset and want to keep them are more likely to offer training, but their numbers have dropped drastically.

Obviously one reason is that training can be expensive, and it also takes time. But the payoff for that investment is crystal clear. One caller, an economist who conducted a study of manufacturers, found that among firms that did some kind of training the turnover rate was so much lower that the savings more than covered the cost of the training. Another caller agreed, saying "the more I train my employees, the more productive and loyal they become."

Are colleges preparing would-be employees well enough? Yes, says Cappelli, "We're in the habit of bashing the education system, but the dropout rate has fallen by half since 1980, and 70 percent of high school graduates go immediately to college. The colleges are doing a fine job -- the most popular major now is business and people coming out can do entry level jobs."

But that's not who employers are looking for. They want people who have work experience, but for the most part, they can't afford to pay the wages experienced people want. So it's not a skills shortage, concludes Cappelli. A shortage means even at the market rate you can't find the skills -- they're just not available. Today the skills are available but companies are saying they just can't afford to pay to get them. A caller agreed, saying "The education system is putting out good people. We find there are a lot of talented people looking for jobs, lots of people with the right skills. We pay market rates and have no trouble finding them."

Blaming the problem on the workforce is wrong, says Cappelli. "If employers are willing to pay competitive wages -- and invest in training -- there are workers out there."

We took these suggestions away from the broadcast:

• Reinvent the apprentice. Pay less while employees are being trained and more when their training is completed.

• Create links with schools that allow employees to work during the day and learn in the evening.

• Automatic interviews are necessary when you're screening thousands of candidates, but watch out for electronic screening programs that do way too thorough a job. We learned about one system that had 25,000 applications and yielded zero qualified applicants, obviously in serious need of redesign. Another demanded that applicants put in their salary expectations and screened out most highly-skilled applicants because their expectations were too high, leading managers to complain about the skills of the remaining applicants. So don't ask quite so many questions.

• An employer who called in mentioned that benchmarking through employer associations helped him find out what the market is paying, and allowed him to set salaries that give him good results and success in recruiting talented people.

• And finally, don't negate the selling power of workplace flexibility. Said one young woman caller, "Not all of us are drawn only by the salaries. Many of us would take a pay cut in exchange for flexible work hours."

• And if you want managers and staff who can manage flexibility, train them with our online training.

And if you want managers and staff who can manage flexibility, train them with our online training.

Utah's Economic Key: Education 

by Cheryl Oldham and Lane Beattie, The Salt Lake Tribune

November 3, 2011

Utahns have many reasons to be proud. The state has a long history of survival during difficult times, and at a time when so many are struggling, Utah is experiencing record growth and plentiful jobs. However, true prosperity demands more than the simple availability of jobs.

Having a well-trained and educated workforce to fill those jobs is critical to economic stability and success. When this talent is missing, we must take a very close and honest look at the systems responsible for preparing our young people.

The business community knows that a vibrant economy requires a commitment to education reform. In keeping with Utah’s pioneering spirit, business leaders, in partnership with their local chambers of commerce, have already mobilized to advance educational investment and innovation. The initiative, Prosperity 2020, is setting bold standards for Utah’s young people and for the future. With a business-oriented plan to improve results, the movement wants 90 percent of elementary students to achieve reading and math proficiency. In addition, it aims to have two-thirds of Utahns achieve postsecondary training by 2020. For this is what Utah employers will require to maintain a vibrant and competitive workforce.

The state is making progress. Utah has adopted the rigorous Common Core Standards to push students toward success beyond the classroom. Utah welcomes innovative and alternative programing like charter schools, and Utah dollars spent on education are spent efficiently. But a lot of work remains to be done.

Other areas essential to reforming Utah’s education system and preparing a highly skilled workforce include a stronger focus on early success, ensuring all students are college and career ready by employing the Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics acceleration and evaluation and performance pay for teachers and principals.

We know that business has a clear economic stake in the future of our nation and our children. We know that business must be an active partner in promoting policies that help young children succeed. We know test scores indicate that U.S. students are not on pace to become the workers we need.

How will Utah apply what we know to how we educate our young people? The nation’s economic challenge is felt nowhere more intimately than by local businesses as they struggle to find top-level talent. Utahns must stand behind business leaders as they take on these challenges. Our future economic security depends on it.

Cheryl Oldham is vice president of the U.S. Forum for Policy Innovation and vice president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Institute for a Competitive Workforce. ICW is the chamber’s education and workforce affiliate; Lane Beattie is the president and CEO of the Salt Lake Chamber.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download