The Teacher/Policymaker Divide

Classroomperspective's comments at the end of the previous post, I think, deserve a thread of their own. As eloquently pointed out in the Edweek commentary piece, we all know that the divide between teachers and education policymakers is huge.

To me, one of the main strengths of an interdisciplinary program like ours is that in any given classroom, I am sitting next to a Hill staffer, an education advocate, someone who works for ED, policy researchers, and current and former classroom teachers. How often in the wider system of education policy does this happen?

There are strengths and weaknesses in each of our backgrounds in education policy. I'm curious about how people think we can better learn from one another, maximizing our collective strengths as we move forward in our careers. To the extent that we find better ways to bridge the gap between classroom experience and policymaking, education in this country will be better for it.

Marx's Efforts at Amherst

Keeping with the higher ed admissions track, Business Week wrote an extensive article several weeks ago about Amherst President Tony Marx's efforts to bring more economically disadvantaged students to his campus. The article does a good job of outlining the challenges Marx faces in his quest. To reduce resistance from wealthy applicants/alumni who object that prioritizing economic diversity with deny the "most qualified" students Amherst admissions (over 6000 applied for slightly over 400 spots last year), Marx plans on increasing the overall enrollment by 25% and earmarking those slots for economic diversity. The plan will require a capital fundraising campaign of hundreds of millions of dollars for new dorms, classrooms and professorships, but rich kids won't have to suffer reduced chance at admission. In the meantime,

[Marx is] hoping that by the fall, faculty and trustees will approve a formal plan to give more of Amherst's coveted slots, perhaps as many as 25%, to students poor enough to qualify for a Pell Grant (usually meaning a family income of less than $40,000 a year). Doing so would vault Amherst far ahead of other elite privates such as Harvard University, where 10% of undergrads are low-income. "If we are sufficiently aggressive, we will force the rest of elite higher education to be much more serious about this," says Marx.

One can only hope.

I may be a little biased on this one. I was one of the very few first-generation college students (of any racial background) at my own undergraduate institution (they don't publish the numbers, but I was told that in the Class of 2003, it was about 6%). I went to a small-town public high school where most students don't immediately go on to higher education. We had one AP course, and most of the class didn't sit for the exam. I imagine that the admissions office considered these facts to my advantage when comparing me to the richly talented and academically/culturally nurtured students I competed with for a spot in my class. In the end, I was able to attend only because of a need-blind admissions policy and the incredibly generous financial aid package I was offered.

Did I experience culture shock when I arrived on campus (and through the whole 4 years)? You bet. But was I underprepared to succeed in a rigorous intellectual environment? In hindsight, I'd say that my fear that was the case was more of a hurdle in my first year than my educational background itself. I don't think I'm unique in that, either. If elite colleges seek students with demonstrated passion for learning and perseverance, regardless of their childhood cultural grooming, the incredible resources available at such places can bear some amazing results.

The "Right" Take on Higher Ed

Yesterday, National Review Online launched a blog to discuss issues in higher ed, Phi Beta Cons. While I can imagine that I won't agree with their conclusions all that often, hopefully they'll have thought-provoking things to say.

To piggyback off the post below, and the issue of economic barriers to higher ed, NRO starts right off by arguing that racial preferences in admissions don't benefit poor minority students. If you've got a subscription to the Chronicle of Higher Ed, the article NRO references is definitely worth a read.* If you don't subscribe, go take a look at the powerpoint presentation for the Kahlenberg study.

This issue's an interesting one that concerns people across the political spectrum. Besides Kahlenberg's work, Lani Guinier has brought attention to the high percentages of Black Harvard undergrads who are not poor US-born students (the generally assumed beneficiaries of affirmative action programs) but middle and upper-middle class immigrants and children of immigrants.

In contrast to NRO's proposed abandonment of race for SES as a preferencing criterion in admissions, Guinier's conclusion is that selective universities should revisit their admissions systems:

"For me, the key point is not whether you should be admitting immigrants or native-born people of color," Guinier said. "The key point is the schools should be reconsidering their reliance on a set of predictors that don't measure the potential outcome of the students."

It's always interesting when a general agreement on what the problem is (in this case, the exclusion of academically-qualified low income students from higher ed) leads to two totally different policy solutions.

*The Chronicle's Kahlenberg Op-Ed was actually presented as a debate. Interestingly enough, NRO used Kahlenberg's research as evidence, instead of Greg Forster's typically conservative argument that poor kids aren't in college at higher rates because they're just not adequately prepared.

Color-blind=Inequity

Since Kindling Flames has been on a higher ed kick this week, I thought i'd continue the trend with this article about how hundreds of thousands of scholarship and fellowship money originally designated for minority students, are being opened up to students who are white.

In 2000, only 11% of Hispanics and 17% of African Americans over the age of 25 had received a college education. For many minority students, financial aid is the key to attending a college or university. As need-based financial aid continues to decline, minority students need the money designated to them by specific grants and scholarships.

**Pretending that all things are equal and that race doesn't matter is a dangerous state of mind which will increase the under-representation of students of color at our country's colleges and universities. Color-blind ideologies and policies do not strike down inequity...but rather perpetuate it.

GW to Ill Student: Withdraw or Face Consequences

I can't stop thinking about this Post article from last Friday. Essentially, a GW undergrad voluntarily checked himself into the hospital because he was having suicidal thoughts. The college's response: sanction the student for a violation of the University's Code of Conduct, essentially forcing him to choose between withdrawing from the University or facing a permanent disciplinary mark on his records.

While I understand the fear of liability, this seems like a totally bizarre response on the part of the University. Does the code of conduct really prohibit seeking treatment for mental illness? I wanted to see for myself: Article 11 outlines prohibited behavior under the Code. While leaving class without permission and falsely pulling fire alarms are potential causes for disciplinary action, suicidal thoughts aren't listed anywhere among the various violations of the Code.

As a part time, commuting graduate student, I know very little about the undergraduate experience at our University. But I worry that, in its fear of liability, GW could be creating an environment hostile to the treatment of mental health issues. Mental illness is often stigmatized as it is; should our University's policies make seeking help cause for disciplinary action?

The Post article did say that the University is in the process of revisiting the ways that it handles the treatment of suicidal students. I hope that, in this process, they find a way to encourage students to seek treatment without submitting them to disciplinary sanctions or forcing them to withdraw from the school.

Update: GW Hatchet reporting on the situation here and here.

Cheap Shot

After a long night of celebrating the GW Colonials victory over Charlotte, (oh wait, that was me as a cool undergrad...as a nerdy grad student I really spent the night doing homework), I awoke Sunday morning to this article in WaPo discussing the miseducation of Omar Williams, key starter for the team.

In a nutshell, the article discusses the issue of college players attending prep schools where they basically don't teach anything and just grant a diploma. Apparently there are around 5,000 prep schools that are not regulated because they fall outside the ed state dep guidelines (while some are among the elite in academic institutions, obviously others are not). Here's my question(s)

How is it possible that we have created an education system where KIPP schools, which are proven to be successful, are not allowed to expand...but these prep schools are allowed to pop up whenever and wherever? I mean, really...are we serious?

Oh...and did I mention that no one is being held responsible? The NCAA, claims that its the principals who provide them with the information, and that they have to trust them (So, it's the principals fault for lying and not the NCAA for failing to check the validity of the information?) The universities say that they receive the okay from the NCAA, so they don't question the schools (so...now it's the NCAA's fault, and not the universities for turning a blind eye?). Wouldn't it be refreshing for once if someone, anyone, turned around and said, "Yes, we made a mistake and now we're going to work together to fix this."

Because in the end, at the heart of this story, we as a community have failed this kid. And on the day after his big game win, he got to read a story about how he shouldn't have been there. We not only failed to provide a quality education and let him slip through the cracks, we also taught him that lying, cheating, and turning a blind eye are okay. As a future player in ed policy, that is not the message I want to be sending to kids. How about you?