presntation outline
khalid alkhalid
comm_4x.docx1 Occupy Higher Education: 1
2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5
6 6
7 WHY COLLEGES 7
8 8 9 9 10 10
11 SHOULD OWN THE 11
12 12 13 13 14 14
15 EFFORT TO IMPROVE 15
16 16 17 17 18 18
19 STUDENT SUCCESS 19
20 20 21 21 22 22 23 23
24 By José L. Cruz and Kati HayCoCK 24
25 25 26 26
27 and Latino families, whose median household wealth has de- 27
José L. Cruz ([email protected]) is vice president for higher
28 clined by 53 percent and 66 percent respectively, compared 28 education policy and practice at The Education Trust. He is
29 to a decline of 16 percent among whites (Kochlar, Frye, & 29 a former vice president for student affairs at the University
30 30 of Puerto Rico System and a former faculty member, depart- Taylor, 2011).
31 31 ment chair, and dean of academic affairs at UPR-Mayagüez. And it’s not just worsening economic inequality: Intergen-
32 32
33 Kati Haycock ([email protected]) is the founder and erational mobility is falling as well. The US now has one of 33
34 president of The Education Trust, a Washington-based orga- the lowest rates of mobility in the developed world, exceeded 34
35 nization that works to promote the academic achievement of only by Great Britain (Hertz, 2006). 35
36 all students at all levels—prekindergarten through college. 36
A
The Role of educaTion
3737 s Americans, we tell each other—and the world— The overwhelming question is, what matters in turning
3838 two powerful stories about our country. this around? Education. At the macro level, better and more
3939 4040 4141
The first is that we are the land of opportunity. equal education is only part of the answer, but at the individ-
Whether your parents came here from Mexico or ual level, it is the main engine of intergenerational mobility.
42you grew up in the hollers of West Virginia, if you According to a recent study, “among those who have finished 42
43 work hard you can become anything you want to be. four years of college, there is no racial gap in economic mo- 43
44 The second is a story of generational advancement. bility: both whites and blacks in this group experience very 44
45 Through saving and hard work, each generation of parents high rates of upward economic mobility” (Mazumder, 2008). 45
46 can secure a better education—and a better future—for their As generations of African American and Latino parents have 46
47 children. told their children, “Education is the one thing they can 47
48 These stories are powerful. They are pervasive. And they never take away from you.”And they were right. Despite re- 48
49 are dead wrong. cent un- and under-employment statistics for college gradu- 49
50 As a new round of cross-national studies is showing us, ates, college-educated adults earn more and are less likely 50
51 the US is now one of the most economically unequal of all to be unemployed than those without degrees (Baum, Ma, & 511 1 2 2 3 3
52 developed countries. The top 5 percent of Americans now Payea, 2011; Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2012). 52 take home 21.3 percent of total income, while the bottom 40 What we in higher education do, in other words, matpercent takes home only 11.8 percent (U.S. Census Bureau, ters a lot to individuals and their ability to contribute to our 2011). Among OECD nations, the US has the fourth high- country’s future. And given the current levels of economic est income inequality, exceeded only by Turkey, Mexico, inequality and the demographic shifts we are experiencing, and Chile (United Nations Development Program, 2011). we cannot preserve our democratic ideals without closing And things are getting worse. The past several years have the educational attainment gaps that separate low-income brought a veritable economic tsunami, especially for black students and students of color from their peers.
www.changemag.org 49
4 The college compleTion agenda themselves to two bold and important goals: first, to increase 4
5 There has recently been a lot of attention given to the the number of college graduates in their states while also 5
6 issue of college completion, affordability, and productiv- ensuring that those graduates are more representative of their 6
7 ity. Describing how miniscule the improvements in aver- states’ high school graduates, and second, to narrow the gaps 7
8 age graduation rates have been over time, critics decry the in college-going and completion rates between the underrep- 8
9 intransigence of faculty and institutional leaders and call for resented populations and their peers. 9
10 Today, the A2S Initiative is 22 systems strong, represent- 10 radical change—including alternative delivery models, such 11 ing 312 two- and four-year colleges and serving more than 11 as those employed in the for-profit sector. 12 12
We at the Education Trust have a different view. Our 3.5 million students. Together, these systems educate about 13 13 investigation of the for-profit sector suggests that it gen- 20 percent of students attending public institutions nation-
14 14 erates far higher costs and far lower results for students ally, including nearly 40 percent of low-income and minority
15 15 16 16
(Lynch, Engle, & Cruz, 2010). And although we too feel an students attending public four-year institutions across the
17 urgent need for change, especially in success rates for the country (Engle et al., 2012). Reaching our collective college 17
18 low-income students and students of color (who will soon attainment goals as a country, therefore, depends in no small 18
19 comprise the majority of young people in this country,) we part on whether these systems reach theirs. 19
20 are skeptical about trying out the most radical alternatives Already, some A2S systems and campuses are making 20
21 on our most vulnerable young people (U.S. Department of substantial progress, demonstrating that the initiative’s and 21
22 Education, 2011). Further, we are dubious that the language the country’s college completion goals are within reach. 22
23 of “productivity,” with its emphasis on cost reduction over Consider, for example, San Diego State University (SDSU), 23
24 student learning, will inspire the efforts of college faculty one of 23 campuses in the California State University 24
25 and staff, who must execute improvements on the front lines System. SDSU is an urban research university serving 25
26 in order for us to reach our collective attainment goal. an increasingly diverse undergraduate population. Today, 26
27 These doubts are founded in what we have learned from more than one in three incoming students are low-income, 27
28 digging into the practices at the colleges that are in fact mov- and more than two in five are Latino, African American or 28
29 ing the needle for their low-income students and students of American Indian (Engle et al., 2012). 29
30 color. What we are finding is that incremental improvements, From 2005 to 2010, San Diego State cut its graduation- 30
31 skillfully and consistently made, produce results. Leaders rate gap for underrepresented minority freshmen by more 31
32 in institutions making big gains engage their faculties and than half, from 19 to 8 percentage points. Graduation 32
33 student support personnel not through frontal attacks but by rates increased for all students during this time but rose an 33
34 connecting their desire for excellence to improved student impressive 22 points for minority students. Among transfer 34
35 students, SDSU posted double-digit increases in minority 35 success for all.
36 graduation rates while cutting the gap nearly in half. And the 36 37 37 impRoving insTiTuTions school also raised rates and narrowed or closed gaps between 38 38
To some in higher education, increasing student success low-income students and their peers (Engle et al., 2010).
39 39 is simply impossible—at least without significant improve-
40 40 ments in the preparation of entering students. Our work has
41 41
42 convinced us otherwise. As readers who are familiar with 42
43 our College Results Online tool and series of related reports 43
44 already know, there are very big differences in student suc- 44
45 cess even among institutions serving exactly the same kinds Leaders in institutions making big 45
46 of students. 46
47 While some institutions remain stuck at the bottom of 47
48 their institutional peer groups, others have made large im- gains engage their faculties and 48
49 provements in just a few years for all students and especially 49
50 for their underrepresented minority students. In fact some student support personnel not 50
51 have completely wiped out the graduation-rate gaps between 51
52 their white students and students of color. through frontal attacks but by 52
Over four years ago, leaders from public higher educa-
tion systems across the country came together out of a connecting their desire for shared conviction that their systems were not doing enough to ensure student success and that they would benefit from
working together toward common goals. Well in advance of excellence to improved student policy action in many states, these system leaders formed the
Access to Success Initiative (A2S). They publicly committed success for all.
50 Change • September/October 2012
53 53 54 54 55 55 56 56 57 57
58 58 59 59 60 60
53 53 54 54 55 55 56 56 57 57
58 58 59 59 60 60
53 53 54 54 55 55 56 56 57 57
58 58 59 59 60 60
1
2
3
4 But San Diego State is not the only big improver. The Uni5 versity of Wisconsin System’s Eau Claire campus is a com6 prehensive university enrolling about 11,000 undergraduates
7 in the Northwest region of the state. In 2005, Eau Claire had
8 one of the largest graduation-rate gaps between low-income
9 freshmen and their peers in the UW system: 12 percentage 10 points. By 2010, however, Eau Claire had cut that gap in half 11 (Engle et al., 2012). 12
And then there is Florida State University (FSU). Located 13
in the state capital, the university enrolls more than 30,000 14
undergraduates, about a quarter of whom are African Ameri-
15 16 17 18
can or Hispanic and a quarter of whom are Pell Grant recipi-
ents. Since 2005, the six-year graduation rate for underrep-
resented minority freshmen has increased by 8 percentage
19 points, from 63 to 71 percent; it is now roughly the same rate 20 as for other students (Engle et al., 2012).
21
22 how do They do iT?
23 Any campus leader worth his or her salt knows the
24 research on best practices and the programmatic initiatives
25 (e.g. first-year experiences, small learning communities,
26 intrusive advising, course redesign) that can help them put
27 those practices into place (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). But
28 that’s where many leaders get stuck: “We’re doing learning
29 communities, and we have first-rate advising and a first-year
30 experience,” they say, “but we’re still not getting traction.”
31 As we dig deeper into the research and into practices at these
32 and other fast-improving colleges, we have come to under33 stand that it’s not about programs or about practices per se 34 but about a set of five necessary conditions for transforming 35 best practice into better practitioners.
36 First, successful institutions tend to have long-term, visible 37
leaders who communicate a clear set of goals and build co38
alitions to achieve them. Steven Weber, who recently retired 39
as president of SDSU after nearly 15 years, set forth a bold
40 41 42 43
vision for his campus when he asserted the need to “replace
the revolving door with a corridor to graduation.” More
importantly, though, Weber backed up his commitment to this
44 goal by making it his highest priority, putting a strong leader-
45 ship team in place, and engaging faculty and staff as key
46 partners in the effort. Similarly, Larry Abele, former provost
47 at Florida State University, told us that “if you want to change
48 something on a college campus, you have to go for five years
49 relentlessly without blinking,” because “there’s no silver bul-
50 let—you increase retention literally one student at a time.”
51 Second, leaders at successful institutions work within
52 institutional rhythms and structures, especially those related to shared governance. Nancy Marlin, provost at San Diego State University, says that “it doesn’t matter what the initiative is—leadership in academia isn’t running out there saying ‘This is what we’re going to do,’ because you turn around and there’s nobody behind you.”
In her position, Marlin has brokered an effective partnership with the faculty senate, working closely to manage the www.changemag.org
university’s retention efforts in ways that preserve the access mission of the institution while improving student outcomes. According to Marlin: “You have to value what [faculty] do and value their opinions and perspectives, because they are the ones who are going to [do the work].”
Larry Abele credits the success at FSU in large part to a team of representatives from departments across campus that he convened on a weekly basis. The purpose of the team was to use data to identify roadblocks to student retention and to assign clear responsibility to team members for removing them. “The advantage of the weekly meetings is you don’t go a month without knowing about a problem,” says Abele. “If you have to sit in that chair and say exactly what you did that week to help your students, you’ll pay attention.”
Third, leaders at successful institutions honor and tap their institution’s culture to privilege student success. When administrators at the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire (UWEC) decided to tackle low retention and graduation rates by increasing the number of graduates while decreasing the time to degree, faculty expressed concerns about “quantity versus quality.” But academic leaders were able to allay those concerns by tapping into Eau Claire’s pride as a student-focused institution with a teaching mission.
According to Patricia Kleine, UWEC’s provost and vicechancellor, “Faculty [here] are exceptionally devoted to teaching. They take serving their students seriously. When we showed them the data… it bothered them.” Michael Wick, associate vice provost at UWEC, concurs: “It’s really been a mind shift for our campus. It’s not about a special initiative or project—it’s about what everybody does on a daily basis. Our faculty and staff are here because they are dedicated to students. That makes a difference.”
Fourth, leaders at successful institutions use data to engage faculty and staff as partners in raising student achievement. “We give [faculty and staff] the data, but we don’t tell them where the problem is. They identify the problem, and we encourage them to solve the problem,” Patricia Kleine explains about their approach at Eau Claire. The result, according to Kleine, is that the faculty and staff “will come up with much better solutions than we could.”
Leaders on successful campuses use data to distinguish what works from what merely “feels good.” As part of its retention plan, SDSU administrators and faculty reviewed data on the use of support programs in order to ensure that the “right students” got the “right intervention” at the “right times.” Doing so not only improved the effectiveness of the programs—it also made the best use of limited resources in tight budget times.
Fifth, leaders at successful institutions recognize that efforts to improve student success are not solely the purview of student affairs. Raising graduation rates is not about lowering standards and expectations but rather about high expectations coupled with high levels of support. SDSU raised its
51
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38
39 40 41
42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52
1 1 2 2
3 3
4 expectations of students by making orientation mandatory, fortable truth is that the US’s income inequality is on par 4
5 force-registering students into remedial and gateway courses, with that of Tunisia, Sri Lanka, and Morocco (Hertz, 2006), 5
6 and advising students to take 15 rather than 12 hours. And and our intergenerational mobility roughly matches that of 6
7 students have taken that advice: Average course loads have Nepal and Pakistan (Isaacs, 2008). 7
8 risen from 12.1 in 1999 to 14.9 in 2012 (Brusi, 2012). So inaction is not an option. Academic leaders and faculty 8
9 But even as they demanded more, SDSU leaders also must own the effort to improve student success, and reform- 9
10 put in place supports that no longer left student success to ers and policymakers need to calibrate and modulate the 10 11 chance and gave students structured second opportunities “productivity” message, translating it into language that is 11 12 12 when necessary. As SDSU’s Geoff Chase, dean of under- consistent with the ideals of excellence and the commitment 13 13 graduate studies, concludes: “What’s driving us on this to institutional missions that characterize our public higher 14 14 campus is that we’ve determined that access is not sufficient. education institutions.
15 15
And it’s not just about success—it’s about high achieve- Clearly, higher education as a sector cannot do it all. But
16 16 ment.” Or as UWEC’s Wick says, “Equity and quantity, we have more power than we have used to date. So let’s
17 17 through quality.” examine the practices of successful institutions and be inten-
18 18
19 tional about expanding access and aligning it with success. 19
20 inacTion is noT an opTion Only then will we replenish opportunity in America. 20
21 If we don’t turn current pattern around, nearly half of After all, “excellent institutions,” as San Diego State’s out- 21
22 all children born to poor parents will themselves be poor going president, Steven Weber, likes to say, “don’t lose large 22
23 (United Nations Development Program, 2011). The uncom- numbers of their Latino or African-American students.” C 23
24 24 25 25 26 26 27 27
28 Resources 28
29 29 30 30
31 n Baum, S., Ma, J., & Payea, K. (2011). Education pays 2010: The benefits of higher education for individuals and 31
32 society. New York, NY: College Board. 32
33 n Brusi, R. (2012). Building a corridor to graduation: San Diego State University. Washington, DC: The Education 33
34 Trust. 34
35 35 n Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2012). Current population survey. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat07.htm
36 36
37 n Engle, J., Yeado, J., Brusi, R. & Cruz, J. (2012). Replenishing opportunity in America: The 2012 midterm report of 37
38 public higher education systems in the Access to Success Initiative. Washington, DC: The Education Trust. 38
39 n Hertz, T. (2006). Understanding mobility in America. Washington, DC: Center for American Progress. 39
40 40
41 n Isaacs, J. B. (2008). International comparisons of economic mobility. Washington, DC: Pew Charitable Trusts. 41
42 n Kochlar, R., Fry, R., & Taylor, P. (2011). Wealth gaps rise to record highs between Whites, Blacks, Hispanics. 42
43 Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. 43
44 44 n Lynch, M., Engle, J., & Cruz, J. L. (2010). Subprime opportunity: The unfulfilled promise of for-profit colleges and
45 45 universities. Washington, DC: The Education Trust.
46 46
47 n Mazumder, B. (2008). Upward intergenerational economic mobility in the United States. Washington, DC: Pew 47
48 Charitable Trusts, Economic Mobility Project. 48
49 n Pascarella, E., & Terenzini, P. (2005). How college affects students. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. 49
50 50
51 n United Nations, United Nations Development Program. (2011). Human development indices: A statistical update 51
52 2011 [Data file]. Retrieved from http://data.un.org 52
n U.S. Census Bureau. (2011). Income, poverty, and health insurance coverage in the United States: 2010 (Current Population Reports, pp. 60–239). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
n U.S. Department of Education. (2011). ED Data Express: National Student Demographics, 2009-10. Retrieved from http://eddataexpress.ed.gov
52 Change • September/October 2012
Copyright of Change is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
Works Cited
Cruz, José L., and Kati Haycock. "Occupy Higher Education: Why Colleges Should Own The Effort To Improve Student Success." Change 44.5 (2012): 49-52. Academic Search Premier. Web. 10 Oct. 2016.
