Each and Every Child: Reflections on the Equity and Excellence Commission’s report (part 2)

In April, I wrote about the Equity and Excellence Commission’s report to Arne Duncan, “For Each and Every Child: A Strategy for Education Equity and Excellence.” The report is broken into five sections: equitable school finance; teachers, principals, and curricula; early childhood education; mitigating poverty’s effects; and accountability and governance. Here, I will focus on the first two sections.In Class

While many leaders lament the inequity of educational opportunities, little is done to stop it (pg. 9). One area in which such inequity is clearly evident is school finance. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, the U.S. spends 35% more than the OECD average on education; yet, no other country has inequities as systemically ingrained as the United States (pg. 15). One factor of the systemic inequity prevalent throughout the U.S. is the reliance on property taxes to largely fund education. Such a reliance on property taxes allows for municipalities with higher value homes to bear a smaller relative tax burden while enjoying higher levels of funding compared to municipalities with lower value homes. In 14 states, over 50% of school funding comes from property taxes, and in Illinois and Nevada it is over 60% (pg. 17). An important, but often overlooked, source of unfair education funding is the inequity within districts. Developing a funding formula that addresses both inequities between districts and between schools in the same district is an important step in improving equity and excellence for every student.

The second section of the report responds to recent trends related to the de-professionalization of teaching, which some have linked to alternative teacher preparation programs, such as Teach For America (TFA). Between 2005 and 2011, TFA has increased its number of corps members from 2,173 to 19,699, a significant increase especially considering that a traditionally certified teacher spends about 1,200 hours in pre-service training compared to a TFA teacher’s 145 hours in pre-service training (Brewer, in press). The report from the Equity and Excellence Commission calls for actions to increase the professionalization of teachers by improving preparation, compensation, and evaluation (pg. 21). The Commission calls for significant change in how we attract, prepare, and support teachers, including expanding teacher preparation that offers intensive coursework that is integrated with clinical models that are often only found in more expensive programs. Attracting well-prepared teachers to communities that serve populations of students that have not had the privilege of highly funded schools requires teacher salaries that are competitive with more advantaged communities. Finally, supporting teachers requires professional development, collaboration, time, resources, and meaningful and fair evaluations, all of which require fiscal resources (pgs. 23-24).

The Commission rightly embraces the stance that schools serving all students deserve adequate resources to close the equity gap. In our current times when education reform is based so much on ideology rather than research and evidence, the Commission’s call for the “use of research to overhaul teacher evaluation and professional development” (pg. 26) is refreshing. To teachers who are blamed for failing schools and bombarded with calls for more accountability, this report’s recommendation to reform teacher-training programs and use valid, comprehensive measures to award teacher tenure and employment decisions is a welcome addition to dialogue.

Brewer, T. J. (in press). Accelerated burnout: How Teach For America’s “academic impact model” and theoretical culture of hyper-accountability can foster disillusionment among its corps members. Educational Studies.

Does Completion Matter?

Our newly-released Spring 2013 UPDATE Newsletter leads off with an interview of Dr. Tony Carnevale, Director and Research Professor of the Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce, by Dr. Collin Ruud, Research Specialist at OCCRL. The interview focuses on the value of receiving credentials, and the nation’s preoccupation with college completion, as well as a wide range of other current topics pertaining to higher education. During this interview, Dr. Carnevale raised concerns about college completion initiatives, asking “Completion for What?”.  The following quote comes from his interview:

I think completion is very rapidly becoming the higher education community’s Potemkin Village. I mean, it doesn’t have much meaning. Completion for what? So if you can say completion to develop human talent, or to fulfill human goals or get a job, that’s great. I think the education community is one in which it’s not their strong suit to say “completion for what,” because there’s a tendency for any industry to believe that whatever it produces has value, irrespective of its purpose, and that’s just not true. That is, if you make cars, you think cars are valuable. You don’t understand why you make 300 cars and they don’t sell; as far as you’re concerned, you made 300 more cars and that was your goal. The point is, if those cars have no use or value, then you don’t really have a standard. What you’re doing is you’re feathering your own nest. So I think completion is something of a false god, to be honest with you. It’s something that comes naturally to educators, that is, “What is it that you need to do when you go to school? You need to go to school until we say that you’re done.” We need to decide what this is for.

My belief is that if the college completion agenda raises the United State’s world rankings  on college attainment but without demonstrating real educational and economic benefits to its citizens, then Dr. Carnevale is right. Credentials that offer uncertain value may be a false promise — an academic charade — that entraps individuals in costly exGraduation-2periences that do not pay off.  We know from research the individuals who are most at risk are those who have the least ability to discern what’s real from what’s not — underserved student populations, first-generation college goers, and others. The fact that higher education can be used in such manipulative ways is a shameful reality that we must face. However, for decades, higher education has been a point of pride for our country.  Achievements associated with higher education are well known nationally and internationally, suggesting it is a national resource to be protected, not devalued.

To Dr. Carnevale’s question, does college completion matter?, I believe that it does. It matters a lot!  Higher education matters because the benefits of college completion matter. Indeed, Dr. Carnevale’s data suggest college completion matters when it yields an economic payoff to college graduates who also experience upward mobility. This is the legacy of the United States’ higher education system. It is about fueling the economy not only for the short term, but for the long term as well. To this end, the nation needs a college completion strategy that protects higher education’s legacy of success but expands opportunities for individual and collective benefits in both the short and long term.  We know that when this occurs, the nation benefits. The nation’s graduates engage in productive work that fulfills their aspirations for a meaningful life while also stimulating the economy. Most importantly, higher education contributes to the collective well-being of a nation, which is fundamental to democracy.

If you have thoughts or comments to share about this blog, comment here or share your feedback at occrl@illinois.edu.


Each and Every Child: Reflections on the Equity and Excellence Commission’s report (part 1)

On April 15, 2013 I attended the “Reframing Reform: Achieving Equity and Excellence in Public Education” summit in Chicago. It was an engaging event with attendees from various education sectors, including not-for-profit foundations, policy makers, education researchers, school board members, and community organizers. A primary focus was the Equity and Excellence Commission’s report to Arne Duncan, “For Each and Every Child: A Strategy for Education Equity and Excellence.” The report is broken into five sections summarizing major findings and recommendations. The topics are: 1) equitable school finance; 2) teachers, principals, and curricula; 3) early childhood education; 4) mitigating poverty’s effects; and 5) accountability and governance. In future posts I will comment on these specific areas.

Hosted by the Center for Tax and Budget Accountability (CTBA), this summit presented multiple perspectives on the role of education reform and its outcomes on equity and excellence. Additionally, the keynote speakers provided thoughtYoung Student-provoking presentations on getting reform right. The first speaker, Pasi Sahlberg, an educator and policy advisor in Finland, has advised over 45 countries, the World Bank, European Commission, and OECD. His presentation focused on how Finland moved from an educationally low performing country in mid-20th century to one of the highest performing countries in the world on various international metrics. Unfortunately, the steps taken by Finland stand in stark contrast to the direction taken by recent reforms in the United States, such as No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top. The second keynote speaker, Congressman Mike Honda (D-California), presented the Equity and Excellence Commission’s report and pointed out that the Commission listed “equity” before “excellence,” an outcome the United States has not been able to achieve for many socioeconomically disadvantaged and minority students. As stated in the opening of the report:

This report summarizes how America’s K-12 education system, taken as a whole, fails our nation and too many of our children. Our system does not distribute opportunity equitably. Our leaders decry but tolerate disparities in student outcomes that are not only unfair, but socially and economically dangerous. (pg. 9)

I concur that education in the United States is not equitable. We, as a nation, face a series of challenges and obstacles if we are to seriously pursue an excellent education for each and every child—perhaps the first of which is deciding how we define “excellent.”

Upcoming Presentations at the Annual Meetings of CSCC and AERA

The annual meetings of the Council for the Study of Community Colleges (CSCC) and American Educational Research Association (AERA) are often a highlight of community college researchers’ and educational researchers’ year. This year, both annual meetings are being held in San Francisco, CA in mid-to late-April. OCCRL is pleased to announce several upcoming presentations at these meetings that feature OCCRL research projects and scholarly contributions by OCCRL faculty and graduate students.

Council for the Study of Community Colleges
April 19-20, 2013
San Francisco, CA

“Reverse Transfer: A Growing Opportunity to Increase College Completion?
April 19, 9:00am-10:30am
Jason L. Taylor, Debra D. Bragg, Collin M. Ruud, Carianne Bishop, and Julia Panke Makela

“Accessing Opportunity? Predictors of Dual Credit Participation in Community College”
April 19, 4:30pm-6:00pm
Jason L. Taylor

American Educational Research Association
April 27-May 1, 2013

San Francisco, CA

“Influences of Career Counseling and College Students’ Perceptions of Career Barriers”
April 27, 12:00pm-1:30pm
Julia Panke Makela

“New Baccalaureate Degrees and ‘College for All’ in the United States: Who Wins and Who Loses?”
April 28, 8:15-9:45am
Debra D. Bragg

“A Comparative Analysis of Classroom Experiences of LGBTQ Undergraduate Students at Two- and Four-Year Institutions”
April 28, 8:15am-9:45am
Jason L. Taylor (with Jay Garvey and Sue Rankin)

“Money, Power, and Matriculation: Academic Clustering, the NCAA (National Collegiate Athletic Association) Annual Progress Rate, and the Theory of Interest Convergence”
April 28, 4:05pm-5:35pm
Lorenzo DuBois Baber (with Derek A. Houston)

“Accountability Strain and College-Readiness Drain in a High-Poverty, High-Minority High School”
April 29, 8:15am-9:45am
Anjale DeVawn Welton (with Montrischa Money Williams and Danielle Forbes)

“The Effects of a Transfer Student Living Learning Community on Academic and Social Outcomes”
April 29, 2:45pm-4:15pm
Matthew A. Linick and Jason L. Taylor (with Nora-Gannon-Slater)

“Are Dual Enrollment Students College Ready? Evidence from the Wabash National Study of Liberal Arts Education”
April 29, 2:45-4:15pm
Jason L. Taylor (with Brian An)

“An Examination of the Effectiveness of Superintendent Preparation: Perceptions of Illinois School Superintendents”
April 30, 8:00am-9:30am
Don Hackmann (with A.J. Fessler)

“The Role of Intermediary Organizations in Policy Making: The Case of Incentivist Reforms”
April 30, 12:10pm-1:40pm
Priya Goel and Matthew A. Linick (with Elizabeth DeBray, David Goldie, Janelle Scott, Huriya Jabbar, and Christopher Lubienski)

“Becoming Academicians: Figured Worlds of Pre-Tenure Female Faculty of Color”
April 30, 5:05-6:35pm
Anjale DeVawn Welton (with Aurora Chang, Laura Jean Cortez, Melissa Ann Martinez, and Danielle Juanice Alsandor)

“Troubling Policy Discourse: Gender and the STEM Crisis”
May 1, 2:15pm-3:45pm
Anjale DeVawn Welton (with Margaret Grogan and Katherine Cumings Mansfield)

Budget Proposals, Interest Rates, and Student Aid

Last Wednesday, President Obama released the Fiscal Year 2014 budget proposal that includes several policy proposals relevant to higher education. While these proposals may not be a surprise, they offeMaking Graphsr an opportunity to consider the broader context of higher education funding. In keeping with the President’s college completion agenda, the budget proposals that incentivize affordability and attainment include a Higher Education Race to the Top (RTTT) Competition, a First in the World fund that focuses on “the development, validation, and scaling-up of cutting-edge innovations…,” as well as reforms to campus-based funding programs such as the Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant, Federal Work Study, and Pell grants.

There is also a proposal to infuse $8 billion to the Department of Labor (DOL) budget for a Community College to Career Fund (CCCF). CCCF, jointly administered with the Department of Education, will continue the mission of the Trade Adjustment Assistance Community College and Career Training (TAACCCT) grant program. President Obama’s budget proposal request specifies that, with two more rounds of TAACCCT grants through 2014 (half of the $2 Billion TAACCCT funds have already awarded), the establishment of CCCF is important to continuing program innovations at community colleges. The CCCF proposal is of added relevance to ongoing research at OCCRL as our office currently serves as the third-party evaluator for two national TAACCCT grant consortia, the Health Professions Pathways (H2P) and the National Information, Security, and Geospatial Technology Consortium (NISGTC). CCCF aims “to support State and community college partnerships with businesses to build the skills of American workers.” An important focus of OCCRL evaluation examines the role and importance of business partners in the community college setting.

Whereas the focus on TAACCCT and community colleges is an important feature of the President’s budget proposal, an arguably even more significant focus is on reform to student aid. Specifically, President Obama’s budget proposal proposes “a cost-neutral reform to set interest rates so they more closely follow market rates.” The proposal also caps loan repayment at 10% of discretionary income. This shift to a market-based rate is a significant change from the current policy wherein student loan rates are determined by Congress. The interest rate on subsidized Stafford Loans is scheduled to increase from 3.4% to 8.6% later this summer, unless Congress decides to hold back the increase. The President’s budget proposal anticipates that the transition to market-based interest rates will benefit students by removing the uncertainties associated with variable interest rates.  For the government, in the current slow economy with low interest rates, this plan will be a financial loss. The long-term outlook is that the shift will reduce the impact of student loans on the federal budget, as the economy rebounds and interest rates recover. However, the proposal is facing criticism by student groups for its lack of a cap on interest rates.

Many of these budget proposals have been preempted by the grantees of the Bill & Melinda Gates Reimagining Aid Design and Delivery program. For example, the New America Foundation proposed pegging the interest rate to the 10-year Treasury note. Incidentally, the New America Foundation was one of the groups that presented at the U.S. House of Representatives’ education committee meeting in March. Several of the Gates grantees also proposed income-based repayment options. In addition, various mechanisms of linking federal aid to attainment and loan repayment accountability measures were common across many of the Reimagining Aid Design and Delivery proposals.

In the days to come, we will come to know which of the President’s budget proposals will have enough political traction in Washington, DC. Until we get to that point, we are interested in hearing your thoughts!