Skip to main content

Parity is a Great Idea: Responding to Kevin Carey

 

A few years ago, Kevin Carey proposed a new way to fund community colleges.  I responded with a “no, thanks.”  This week, he tried again.

 

Much better.

 

He divides the proposal into three parts: short-term training, undergraduate degrees, and graduate degrees.  For short-term training, he proposes using the ‘gainful employment’ guidelines to ensure that students only enroll in programs that offer a realistic shot at paying off.  Of course, that presupposes really good data, which is a stretch at this point, but the basic idea makes sense.  There have been too many boondoggles with short-term training.

 

I’d add some qualifiers.  In the data, it’s important to distinguish students who already have degrees from students who do not.  A fair number of students in certificate or training programs already have undergraduate degrees; they’re trying to change careers.  Those students are in a different place educationally than the students who have no other college experience.  Lumping them together in program outcomes may lead to misleading conclusions.

 

The part about graduate education is a bit more of a grab-bag, but I was struck that the discussion focuses mostly on master’s degree programs that charge tuition.  When I think about crises of graduate education, I tend to think about doctoral programs that lead to fields with weak job prospects.  In those cases, the loans that students take out probably aren’t for tuition, much of which may have been waived anyway.  They’re for living expenses.  Most fellowships and teaching assistantships pay very little, and research universities are often in relatively expensive places.  Putting too harsh a cap on borrowing for those could lead back to graduate school being a place only the wealthy can go. 

 

From the outside, one might imagine that restricting the size of doctoral programs in fields with lousy job prospects would be a no-brainer.  But the dirty little secret is that universities need graduate assistants for cheap labor, whether as teaching assistants or research assistants.  That creates a real obstacle to significant cuts.  

 

But my beat is community colleges, so I’ll focus there.

 

Carey does something radical enough that it warrants special notice: he proposes funding parity between community colleges and four-year colleges.  Yes, yes, yes.  He proposes starting with a federal operating aid figure of $10,000 per student per year, conditioned on not charging tuition to anyone with income under the national median. (The proposal a few years ago offered half as much.)  I’d add a few stipulations, such as a maintenance-of-effort requirement for states.  I don’t know how to do that with local funding when that local funding relies on referenda.  I’d also index the amount to the inflation rate for services, so we don’t fall into a Baumol’s cost disease trap over time.

 

Community colleges as a sector have become more porous than they once were.  They teach far more dual enrollment classes in/with high schools than they used to, which raises questions about funding models.  (Who gets the FTE?)  On the other end, community colleges in just over half of the states can offer at least a few selected bachelor’s degrees, and 3 + 1 agreements are becoming more common.  As the boundaries dissolve, funding parity becomes a pragmatic imperative as well as a moral one.  So, kudos.

 

While we’re at it, I’d add funding for “adult basic education” classes.  Those are the basic literacy and numeracy classes that aren’t usually job-specific.  ABE classes are life-changing, but they’re badly underfunded and (therefore) underprovided.  Family literacy and adult literacy programs pay social dividends for generations; they deserve robust support.

 

A consistently transparent funding mechanism would help colleges plan.  A consistently transparent pricing mechanism would help students and families plan.  Both would be significant improvements over the current system.  Politically, it’s a major reach, but it’s a reach worth trying. So, that’s a yes from me.

 

Wise and worldly readers, what do you think?




 

Show on Jobs site: 
Disable left side advertisement?: 
Is this diversity newsletter?: 
Is this Career Advice newsletter?: 
Advice Newsletter publication dates: 
Tuesday, September 27, 2022
Diversity Newsletter publication date: 
Tuesday, September 27, 2022


Udimi - Buy Solo Ads from Inside Higher Ed https://ift.tt/ltC6pwc
via IFTTT

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Author discusses book on grad school

Graduate school is a great mystery to students, and to some faculty members, says Jessica McCrory Calarco, the author of A Field Guide to Grad School: Uncovering the Hidden Curriculum (Princeton University Press). Calarco is an associate professor of sociology at Indiana University. She believes many faculty members (as well as graduate students, of course) will benefit from her book. She responded to questions via email. Q: How did you get the idea to write this book? Why did the issue speak to you? A: This book started as a tweet . Or, rather, as a series of tweets about the hidden curriculum of higher ed. Ph.D. student Kristen K. Smith had tweeted about the need to better educate undergrads about grad school opportunities, and it made me think about how opportunities in academe are often hidden from grad students, as well. Reflecting on my own experiences in grad school, I thought about the many times I'd found myself embarrassed because of what I didn't know -- the ...

Bad Education: A Movie Review

"It's not having what you want," quips Roslyn Assistant Superintendent Pam Gluckin in her Long Island accent, "it's wanting what you got." And what educators got from HBO's Bad Education was a harrowing detail of a pair of school administrators gone rogue with the school district's treasury, sacking $11.2 million before they were caught... by [...] from The Educators Room https://ift.tt/3d5LaSu via IFTTT

Tips and Strategies for Remote Learning (March 2020)

For the past four weeks, starting two weeks before our Spring Break last week, teachers, administrators and staff at our school have been preparing for “remote school” for students as a result of the coronavirus / COVID-19 crisis. On March 19, 2020, our Head of School sent out a letter to our parents including information about our remote learning plans and FAQs for parents . If your school is currently preparing for remote learning ( as all Oklahoma public school districts now appear to be , pending tomorrow’s state school board meeting vote) I encourage you to review these publicly shared documents and information. As our school’s “Technology Integration and Innovation Specialist” this year, I’ve been building an instructional site for our teachers to support remote learning, on support.casady.org , which is openly licensed CC-BY . This collaborative effort with many other teachers and members of our school staff has provided a good opportunity to curate as well as present instruc...