The Tortoise Picks Up Speed

Here’s a short piece (Former Govs. Prod States on Digital Education )that seems to suggest that the tortise in the digital education race– the public educatin system– may be slowly catching up to the hare– the for profit sector. It seems to have a focus on K-12 but there’s no reason it can’t exapnd its reach. Slowly but surely the public sector is going to wake up…

What’s impressisve about the Digital Learning Council is that it iincludes people from both Apple and Microsoft, as well as administative types. Power and money, any way you look at it. Now if they would only realize that they can use this technology to make a college degree cheaply available to working class and poor kids. Then the race really would be on…

Surprise!

Here’s a short passage that I bet just about everyone would find surprising:

President Obama has set a noble goal of having the United States lead the world in college graduation rates by 2020. It is an aim that will empower individuals and strengthen the country as a whole, but it certainly won’t be easy. Our current graduation rates are far behind our international competitors and we will be hard pressed to meet our own college-educated workforce capacity by the end of the decade.

It’s from a student advocacy group called Education is a Right: “We Need Vigilance in the Higher Education Community”. What? The U.S., the most powerful nation in the world, isn’t the leader in graduation rates? Nope. The piece is remarkable in other ways, too, particularly in the way that it links for-profit education, socioeconomic class, and government funding.

I just hope that our administrators realize that being cautious in recruitment, and allowing a clear picture of defaults and job placement rates to emerge, can only help us reach out beyond the class boundaries of traditional education. I also wish Education is a Right would be just as concerned with employment practices in all of higher education, but that’s a story for another day.

Thinking Small

The entire modern history of higher education in the U.S. is littered with various people– inevitably but not always crediting themselves with liberal intentions– wringing their hands over the difficulties of class mobility. No matter the context, the basic idea is always the same: not everyone wants to go to college, so why should we make them? It’s an appeal to our sacred values of individuality. We are all unique, we should all be the masters of our own destiny.

Chris Meyer’s recent piece in Education Week (The Inadvertent Bigotry of Inappropriate Expectations) has all of the right elements: the liberal credentialing (“As someone who founded and ran a college-prep enrichment program for at-risk secondary school students…”) and the appeal to individuality (…”our schools should … build on students’ interests and help them develop real-world skills that will give them an economic foothold after graduation.”).

Meyers offers a story about a student telling a professor that she would like to be a nurse. “How about a doctor?” the professor asks. Meyers describes the answer as “the haughty disdain with which many educators and policymakers view careers that do not require a bachelor’s or advanced degree.” I am not persuaded. Meyers is coy about the student’s ethnicity and age, to start, but he hints that the student is black: “I will call her Shanika.”

We might imagine other stories. The student might be a young African American women who doesn’t think people as poor as her family can ever become doctors. As any teacher knows, these brief moments of encouragement are often very important moments in a student’s life, even if she doesn’t go on to be a doctor. That’s not what really bothers me about his story. What bothers me is that I wanted the professor to answer in a completely different way.

I think that the story illustrates our lack of courage and imagination. Why can’t a nurse begin her education with an undergraduate degree in music, or philosophy, history, literature, or political science? The liberal arts were designed to be existentially and socially transformative. In theory, once you got your undergraduate degree you could go on to any form of employment– carpenter to professor– and society would reap the benefits. Why think so small?

The Pot Calling the Kettle Black

I have some colleagues– all in the non-profit education business– who feel a little too smug about the for profit industry. It’s naive, of course, to think that the for-profit industry schools are, by and large, less ethical than the traditional universities, with their multimillion dollar athletic programs (essentially an advertising and recruitment expense as extravagant as any drug company) and two-tier employment system of a few tenured professors supported by the many non-tenured, par time teachers and graduate students. No sector can afford to throw stones in these glass houses.

The for profits, for example, are no more likely to put students into debt, according to Neal McCluskey (Politicians Are The Problem For Higher Ed). What’s unique about the for-profits is that they arose during the worse excesses of laissez-faire Regan style capitalism. If the traditional universities need reform and a tightening of regulations, particularly when it comes to labor policy, the for profits suggest an entirely new kind of consumer protection regulation. I think the for-profits, for example, should not be able to make extravagant claims for the employment prospects of graduates. Neither should the traditional universities.

McCluskey is correct about the high cost of tuition but I think he’s wrong to suggest that the problem is that education is oversold. Similarly, he sounds vague and unpersuasive when he blames “the politicians”– although I am certain our representatives have their share of the blame. The problem is that no one seems to be able to articulate a rationale for mass education in a post industrial economy. In fact, the more the middle class shrinks, and the poor, working class, and working poor expands, the harder it is to justify educational accessibility. Educational capital only has real revolutionary potential if it is widely available.