Earlier today I posted approvingly about President Obama’s proposal to make two years of community college free for all who work for it, meaning, “Students must attend community college at least half-time, maintain a 2.5 GPA, and make steady progress toward completing their program.” In the announcement, the White House said that his proposal is similar to one enacted in Tennessee by Republican Governor Haslam.
Dissenting readers feared this plan would be a means of imposing NCLB, Race to the Top, and VAM on higher education.
Here is an email I received with other concerns from a professor of mathematics at the University of Memphis:
Dear Professor,
Perhaps you are aware that President Obama is visiting Knoxville, TN, today to talk about his free community college program
http://wate.com/2015/01/08/pres-obama-to-propose-free-community-college-program/. Please see the short video in the bottom of the even shorter announcement.
I think there are many people who (should) have a less than enthusiastic take on this proposal, since it is just a manifestation of the national movement to privatize public education.
In my opinion, the idea behind this free community college proposal is to weaken high quality education (public universities), and then easily implement privatization in the form of outsourcing university/college functions (teaching, research) to private companies. Part of this future will be the wide spread use low quality forms of education, such as online courses.
Concrete example for transferring funds from high quality education to lower quality
Here is a concrete example from my university, The University of Memphis (UofM), that should give a pause to the celebration of free higher education. Last year, shortly after the announcement of a $20 million cut to UofM’s budget, came the announcement of Tennessee Promise that offers free education to all TN residents at public community colleges. In my opinion, TN Promise is a perfect example for taking money away from high quality education (UofM, in this case), and use the extra funds to invest in low quality education (community colleges). Then this lower quality education is offered to the masses as a solution to their educational needs.
To make the high-to-low quality education transformation explicit, I remark that we at UofM are now pressured to start accepting lower level courses to our major requirements to “ease the transition of students from community colleges to our university”.
This transformation to low quality education is, of course, quite similar to what’s happening in K-12 education. In Tennessee, the Achievement School District takes over schools, fires the teachers, then the teachers get replaced by young underpaid, undertrained teachers. This scheme is presented as a solution to the educational needs of the poor.
In other words, both in higher and K-12 education, low quality alternatives are offered to the poor with obvious social (and often racial) implications.
Weaken the opposition: eliminate the tenure system
The first step in the privatization movement is the weakening of the opposition. Community colleges have a much greater number of adjunct faculty than 4 year colleges. Adjuncts are much easier to control than tenured faculty. This is one of the reasons Gates is supporting community colleges instead of 4 year colleges. It’s “educational” to listen to him as he answers a question about why he focuses his efforts to community colleges and especially why he prefers adjunct professors over tenured ones; just watch this for, say, 3 minutes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xf_rxN8Dqfg#t=36m36s
At UofM, the total salary increase of all employees between 2009-2014 was $10 million. Most of this increase went to increase administration and temporary faculty. The total salary of tenured faculty during these 5 years not only didn’t increase but got reduced.
So again, the strategy of the privatizers seems clear: strengthen community colleges at the expense of 4 year colleges. Weaken the power of opposing tenured professors so that then the privatization of public higher education can be accomplished much easier with the easily controlled adjunct faculty. To be sure, the privatization has been happening. In an earlier email, I reported to you the concerete example of a $5 million/ year teacher training program to be run by Relay and TNTP on the UofM campus, but there are other examples for outsourcing university functions to private companies.
Publicize the privatization scheme and the associated statistics
In my opinion, it would be important to publicize the general scheme of the privatizers so that people would recognize them. In some cases, like TN Promise, it’s not so easy to recognize the underlying motivation.
Also, it would be important to be able to support claims by numbers. It would be great to encourage people to find out, publicize and regularly update the following numbers for their school district (they are not easy to obtain, though they are supposed to be public records)
1) The names and number of schools that are taken over by charterizers (like the Achievement School District in TN).
2) The number of teachers fired during the take over.
3) The average salary of the fired teachers.
4) The average salary of the newly hired teachers.
In (4 year) public colleges, it would be important to publicize and maintain
5) The total salary increase for the last 5 and 10 years.
6) The total salary increase of the permanent (tenured) faculty for the last 5 and 10 years.
7) The total budget allocated to private companies in each of the last 5 years.
The stats in 5) and 6) above are not difficult to do, and can be done using publicly available salary databases. I’d be happy to show anybody what and how I did at UofM.
Best,
Mate Wierdl
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Great offer for anyone who is in higher education and also AWAKE to the larger currents of privatizing public institututions and services. The reasoning here is on the mark.
The proportion of adjuncts–no job security, often working in more than one institution to make ends meet–has increased dramatically in the last three decades.
Many of the adjuncts are “overqualified” for the jobs they take. Some few like the flexibility of opting in and out of jobs
.
The American Assocciation of University Professors should be one source of national data and trends.
LikeLike
Good points. I think community colleges offer important and much-needed programs for students who can’t afford or are unable to attend four-year universities. But historically, successful government programs that move people into and through higher education have just given them money, and let them spend it at the institution that best meets their own educational needs and desires. Think of the WWII veterans who went to elite universities on the G.I. Bill, or all the students who attended public universities with the help of Pell Grants.
Many community colleges do laudable work to give a second chance to students who need it. But some low-income students have worked hard and performed well throughout their school years; it makes no sense for the government to essentially pay them to curtail their educational ambitions, giving them funds for higher education only if they choose community college instead of a university.
LikeLike
We should be cautious about branding this proposal “free” since the TN state subsidy is ‘last-dollar’ aid, meaning TN Promise money kicks in for the difference after the student receives a Pell Grant, TN Hope scholarship, or a school loan. Congress cut funding by 50% for Pell Grants in 2014, & the ever generous to the 1% TN lege cut funds for the HOPE scholarship, opportunities for getting grants that cover the real costs of college are significantly diminished.
Students will need to take out school loans to cover some tuition, plus the total cost of books, fees, & living expenses. Students must also complete 8 hrs of community service prior to every semester, must be a recent HS graduate, and work with a mentor who volunteers to guide the student through the grant process and to college completion.
The community service & mentor pipeline for TN Promise is tnAchieves:
https://tnachieves.org/board-members
One of tnAchieves board members, Mike Ragsdale, is the past Knox Co. mayor who was exposed by the local news for financial irregularities. Among others, one gross irregularity was misappropriating federal housing grants. http://www.knoxnews.com/news/local-news/moving-forward
Here is a link to TN Promise & its requirements:
http://tnpromise.gov/about.shtml
It is important to publicize the conditions of TN Promise so students will understand that this does not necessarily mean community college is free.
LikeLike
Beware of gifts bearing messages too good to be true.
LikeLike
There are going to be some strings attached:
“States must… allocate a significant portion of funding based on performance…”
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/01/09/fact-sheet-white-house-unveils-america-s-college-promise-proposal-tuitio
LikeLike
Based on the history of “reformers,” the Gates focus on tracking students, and the big time money that corporations stand to make, it’s not difficult to deduce this means the feds will be requiring frequent standardized testing in college. Will Common Core College Standards come next, as well as scripted curricula and massive test prep? I think all of this would result in a whole lot of students who’ve learned to hate school, are tired of MOTS and drop out.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on As the Adjunctiverse Turns and commented:
So far NTT faculty responses range from jubilation (more CC tenure slots) to deep concern (increased adjunct exploitation). We may not be as “easy to control” as the letter writers assumes but so far still lack the means to resist privatization in the guise of “free education.”
Watch Obama explain why he prefers adjuncts to tenured profs. Where do you stand on this?
LikeLike
I agree with this point of view as well. I believe too many strings are attached, the push to on-line learning will occur and there will be continued destruction of schools and teachers. Don’t believe anything good will come of this initiative.
LikeLike
I suppose it is naive to suggest that Obama would actually want to help lower income students. We should expect more stick than carrot from him.
LikeLike
This is exactly what I feared when I first heard about the proposal. Lo and behold, someone on this blog has the facts to back up my suspicion. I’m so grateful to benefit from the smart conversation that happens here!
We are living in an age when public education is more political than ever. So few statements can be taken at face value.
LikeLike
I agree with the content related to the negative attributes associated with redirection and privatization – much is moving towards low quality. But to equate low quality to the public community college system in this nation or in any state is grossly unfair and just plain wrong. Many students begin their higher education for many reasons and find dedicated teachers who spend time with them, and in many cases, better academic support. The elitist approach that only the University has the ability to offer a high level education for the first two years of college, is quite simply, BS.
LikeLike
As a recently retired community college instructor, I thank you, Paul. The calculus students in my community college were taught by highly qualified math instructors, in classes of 35 or fewer, with many opportunities for one-on-one interaction with the instructors. Compared with the giant classes prevalent at my state universities, this is high quality instruction. In addition, the community college instructors consider teaching their main job, while four-year-college instructors (professors) have the added requirement of research, and quite often regard this as more important than instruction.
Regarding the main topic of this post, although lack of tuition would have helped many of my students financially, it would not have been enough. They got student loans to pay for transportation, rent, food, books, and supplies. Being a student does not mean that you live for free. Most of my students worked outside of school. Many were the wage-earners for their families. Assuming that lack of tuition makes college free is a kind of magical thinking from people who have never been there themselves.
I am suspicious of “free” money from the federal government, because there are always strings attached. I have seen the effects in K-12 education. Looking at this offer from the most cynical point of view, I would say that community colleges seem to be the low-hanging fruit of higher education. They are the most vulnerable because their funding is the least stable. Those who make this offer plan to use their money to reform community colleges now, but the rest of higher ed is next.
LikeLike
I agree. For a lot of people where I live it isn’t “community college versus public university”. If they aren’t going to community college they aren’t going to college.
I’d be careful with dismissing technical certificates and degrees, too. The fact is everyone doesn’t need or want a bachelor’s degree and people who work as techs in all kinds of fields do difficult, necessary work. I have a two year technical degree from a community college (25 years ago) and I didn’t think it was easy at all.
I do agree with him on adjuncts, but that’s national and it’s not just education. A lot of work has been devalued. We talk a lot about how much we respect hard work but we sure don’t act like it- temps, no benefits, no job security, horrible management- that’s all over the place. A lot of folks in health care feel the same way as people in education.
LikeLike
I have taught at Community Colleges and would agree that they have many skilled professors and that students can get a high quality education there. However, a lot of Community Colleges were long ago deprofessionalized, so that at many schools, entire departments have only one person who is a full time faculty member. The rest are contingent faculty, known as adjunct professors.
I think adjuncts are what make Community Colleges most vulnerable to this scheme. Adjuncts are often not invited to participate in faculty governance, typically receive low pay, usually get no benefits or pensions and they have no tenure or academic freedom, so they have a lot to lose by voicing their opinions and can be readily fired.
Adjuncts are even more appealing than the kinds of teachers “reformers” like to see at charter schools, because most adjunct professors are not given annual contracts but are hired one course at a time, which can be as short as 4 weeks, depending on the course and how semesters or trimesters are broken into terms. Adjuncts ensure the revolving door of teachers that “reformers” so adore.
LikeLike
I like Mate Wierdl’s analysis. Free higher education has a great ring to it. And it should be the law of the land. But the way capitalism works in America promotes exactly what Mate Wierdl suggests.
And what about those who have 2.0 grade averages who used to get to go to community colleges? Define “responsible” students. And what about community members over 18 yrs. of age who wish to return to school for their future benefit?
I tweeted Jan. 8th that community colleges (junior colleges in my day) were free. I got a lot of respondents who said that they were never free. Of course they were. Many attend our local community colleges and don’t pay a dime to go. They pay for books and supplies. It’s the Pell Grants that are of the most help. And the additional funding comes from BOG grants (Board of Governors).
As a former teacher in secondary and post secondary education, I stand behind tenure and proper funding for all staff. Sadly, it is being eviscerated by a phoney “austerity” premise which is nothing more than extracting even more from the public weal and injecting further profits into Big Banks which now continue to gamble with impunity with what was once a public good (rents and incomes, pensions, etc.)
In my time long ago a good, tenured professorship was payed more than what the football coach was paid. Now, in most states, the football coaches are the highest of paid workers as tenure crumbles and adjuncts increase.
I believe the scenario mentioned above will continue until a united bottom up movement explodes on the scene demanding true democracy over the reverse democracy of authoritarianism is overrun. Until the privatization of the commons is reconciled to the benefit of equity for all citizens.
LikeLike
Obama/Duncan are not leopards who plan to change their spots, so their 6-yr aggressive push for privatizing public education and funneling the huge public sector budget to Gates and other private forces, remains their default position. Mainstream politicians frequently showcase ambitious educational claims and plans because “education” is a ‘God-word’ in our society, appealing to a great mass of people, and posturing around ‘education’ makes it look as if politicians intend to make a difference and speak for the little man and little woman. We witnessed Dems and GOP sign off together on NCLB in ’01. Now, when an anti-education President suddenly gets religion and stands up for opening the doors to college, we are wise to be skeptical about a leopard announcing he is now without spots.
O’s plan is for the feds to pay 75% of tuition for students at community colleges who keep a 2.5, attend at least half-time, and make progress to a degree. States have to buy into the remaining 25%. Millions of working-class folks need this benefit, which should have been a right not a belated “gift.” Because the Obama Plan is outflanking progressive and democratic educators to our left–by proposing a mass popular benefit program–it’s a complex moment. Some very smart observers propose that this new plan will use the comm doll’s as a weapon to undermine the upper levels of public higher education, because it gives the State a credible and popular reason to starve the higher levels of fund by directing new monies at the bottom level of cc’s. This objection matters because the State does play different constituencies against each other.
Originally, when the “community college movement” launched, following NYState’s 1948 education law and California’s soon after, the “triple-track university” became the national norm, with low-cost, low-budget, vocationalized community colleges being built around the country as the bottom track designed for non-elite students thought unfit for the regular colleges already in existence. In the 1960s, such cc’s were ferociously built and opened at the rate of 1 every 10 days for 10 years(according to the AAJCC). The 400K students in cc’s in 1959 became 4mil by 1971. It’s fair to say that the State’s decision to build a separate higher education track for lower-class students protected the existing colleges from having to enroll the great mass of non-elite students who were en route to higher ed from the baby boom. This is the conclusion reached by two eminent comm coll historians, Cohen and Brawer–that cc’s shielded elite existing public campuses from having to enroll and education non-elite students–see their ‘American Community College.’) With ‘non-elite’ students tracked into cc’s and then further tracked in cc’s into “cooling-out processes”(Burton Clark’s famous claim in 1960), tenured faculty at 4yr campuses were sheltered from the mass college students who were sent to cc’s, sustaining the academic culture of 4yr/univ fax for decades. Now, some smart observers propose that the Pres.’s cc plan will actually use the cc’s to undermine the once-sheltered higher levels of higher education.
The sheltering actually ended 40 years ago when budget cuts in the Nixon Era undermined public 4yr colleges and universities. These upper levels along with the comm coll level are targets of a long hollowing out by the state and private sector which has undermined the capacities of the public sector by starving the budgets. Watching it evolve for the past 40 years, I can say it has taken a deep toll. Faculty have been fighting a long retreat, slowing down but unable to stop the corporatizing of the public sector. This is a continuing danger, that corporate policy will continue to transform the university into a total vocational service unit for Exxon, Koch Industries, Gates, etc.
However, the 1200 or so public comm colleges in the US have long been overwhelmed by vocationalism and business ethos. They have been the leading wedge in vocationalizing higher ed. CC’s have the highest percentage of contingent labor dominating their faculty, 60-70% part-time adjunct faculty teaching the cc courses. This is the corporate dream for all sectors of the American economy–a low-wage, unprotected workforce hired contractually by need and fired at will. This is what we now have in the community colleges, and at many 4yr campuses also(my English Dept. has 100 adjuncts and 35 full-timers). This suggests that free tuition for lower-income students at comm coll will not convert the comm coll into a leading weapon to undermine the senior colleges b/c the cc’s are already there, charging tuition for a vocationalized education which cannot guarantee gainful employment in the weak, unpredictable, low-wage economy we have. The problem is that this new initiative may give state policymakers a reason to transfer public funds from the upper levels of higher ed to the lowest level in the guise of open access and the American Dream.
The only way to deal with such a threat from an apparently “good” initiative emerges from demonstrably “bad” authorities, is to coalesce. ‘Free tuition’ is a policy around which to build democratic consensus across the levels of higher ed. Obama has safely chosen an issue without much threat to his party or to his patrons, but an issue which can put the Republicans on the defensive. It will take so long for this new plan to get going and it’s long-term consequences are so iffy, given that comm colleges have a weak track record of placing grads in the fields for which they are trained, that we educators would better use our imaginations to invent something that really makes a difference—like an alliance of all faculty across the hierarchy of higher ed; like an alliance of full-timers and part-timers; like an alliance of college teachers with those in k-12; like robust discussions and experiments in critical teaching and learning which prepare students at all levels to campaign in society for civic needs. Such alliances are the best way to protect against the agendas mainstream politicians bring to the nation.
LikeLike
Ira,
I heartily agree with your comments and ideas. And, I especially appreciate that you’ve offered ideas about what to do besides just voicing alarm.
I would add to your suggestions the idea that teachers at all levels need to take ownership of all instructional technology and all assessments of teaching and learning rather than abdicating that rightful authority to others. Teachers have always assessed learning, but we’ve failed to keep up with the tools for reporting those assessments of learning and allowed Pearson to take over.
Staunching proclaiming that technology and assessment is bad just makes those that make the proclamations seem defensive and uninformed. Teachers are smart enough and good enough to use innovative technology and assessment tools appropriately.
Forming alliances as you recommend will enable teachers to guide the necessary new development in community colleges. If teachers don’t do it, somebody else will.
LikeLike
Only Obama could turn something so seemingly benign and positive like universal preschool or free college into something so ugly and harmful. There are people who still argue that Obama is some kind of eleven dimensional chess player and we mere mortals will never understand his ways. I guess that must be true because how else could he out-Republican the Republicans and still be thought such a great liberal?
LikeLike
Given that 4 year colleges depend on their intro enrollments for dept. dollars, incentivizing the re-allocating of students to CC’s not only gets more students educated for less (since adjuncts costs way less and typical CC faculty teaching load can be double that of a 4 year faculty member),I believe it will also drastically change the finances of 4 year public institutions drastically, as they will have to cut faculty positions dramatically if they see a huge reduction of intro level students. This push will happen at the same time that there is a wave of baby-boomer faculty retirements.
On the flip-side, Obama’s strategy could also starve the bad-actors in the for-profit career college school sector, giving those students incentive to go to CC’s instead of getting in huge debt at for-profit schools which often over-promise on the value of their degrees.
LikeLike
From this week’s Inside Higher Ed: Online courses at intro level can go larger and save institutions $$$ (study done of DeVry Courses):
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/01/05/study-finds-no-impact-increasing-class-size-student-outcomes
LikeLike
DeVry is a lousy model. Reports indicate the school repeatedly uses the same tests in courses, so students are able to get a hold of copies, despite the fact that the school has been informed of the problem. So grade inflation is probably rampant and success rates are likely bogus.
LikeLike
I predict that what will happen, now that it is free, is that a lot of folks who would not have gone, will go…and then drop out, or fail to hit that 2.5 and blame the teachers.
And then there will be the NCLB mandates for adults; call it NALB
Then the fear-mongering and false narratives “Community Colleges are failing our adults!’
Then…private enterprises going in to teach the teachers how to teach the adults who are also now not going to be held accountable
Call it reform 2.0
LikeLike
That’s what I was thinking. It’s almost like Obama’s setting the whole system for failure. How many students will drop out or fail because they never would have gone anyway? Then he and Arne can blame their schools and instructors. If he really wanted this program to be successful, he would be offering free college to students who have already completed one year with a decent GPA. At least those students have demonstrated that they have the ability and drive to finish school.
LikeLike
Obama has earned distrust from educators but his opposition in the GOP are no more trustworthy, so progressive and democratic educators cannot afford the luxury of following a simplistic negative dismissal of this Obama plan. Instead, we have to take the ball and run with it, while holding Obama’s feet to the fire(go figure how you run and hold his feet to the fire at the same time). We’ll cope with this maneuver better if we profoundly raise the stakes–call for more and more free tuition and deeper investments in public education from the bottom up. To get there, we’ll need to overcome the divide and conquer imposed on us by state law which separated higher education into three unequal tracks. Divided by rank, we’ll always lose.
LikeLike
In 2013, the University of Memphis got a $20 million budget cut, and soon after the $35 million free CC program was announced. At what point did we have any chance to organize ourselves to change anything? (This is a real question not a sarcastic one)
But even after the fact: How can we, profs, organize and influence what happens with the free CC program in TN? How can we make sure, the community colleges are not turned into charter colleges? As far as I can tell, teachers at TN comm colleges have little power and they don’t have a union.
My understanding is that college profs are notoriously difficult to organize. It would be great if you could tell me some examples from US history when a statewide (or even US-wide?) organization of profs achieved something significant.
LikeLike
As I was reading this blog the news was on with Obama speaking of this plan. He was in TN and the idea that this initiative is modeled after anything they’ve done in TN makes me especially nervous.
LikeLike
I graduated from a community college and was able to transfer successfully to a four year college. I worked several part time jobs in order to pay for my education. I learned more from working in the real world than I learned from college courses at one of California’s best community colleges. I think the character, gratitude and life experience you acquire from working to afford your education is priceless. This will not be gained by young people who are offered the privilege to attend college for free. When one is given everything one gains nothing. I should add I own my own business and also teach at the college level. These successes I do not attribute exclusively to my education. I attribute my success and savvy in the workplace to the long hours I spent working for minimum wages to afford my college classes. Obstacles provide the necessary “grit” one needs to be successful in our increasingly competitive world. College is a privilege which our country makes entirely accessible by providing second chance education at community colleges. It did take me about eight years to complete my goals but I would not trade my path for anything. The gratitude I feel for having achieved my goal is priceless!
LikeLike
I agree. I did community college for three years, while working full time. Graduated with a 3.85 and then transferred to Berkeley at 29, and graduated with honors two years later. Community college was my of going back, and part of the reason I worked so hard was because I paid for my own college exp.
LikeLike
I beg to differ. I have been teaching young adults, as well as returning adult students, since the 90s and I was both kinds of student myself. (I worked on three of four degrees while working full time in low income jobs.) I think the effort that older students put into college has a lot more to do with the fact that they are more mature, often self-directed learners, who have developed time management skills and who are ambitious yet set achievable goals than it has to do with who is paying the bill.
Personally, while I feel very accomplished academically, I was not able to dramatically increase my income as a result of my advanced education, so I am still paying off my student loans, which has given me a lot of grief, not pride.
LikeLike
Neatorama nailed this one. I’ve been saying for years we need to bring back trade school…in high school. Not everyone is going to college and thank goodness, I need a skilled plumber, electrician, tech person…and on and on. We are all valuable in our own way and deserve the education we require…not the one Gates want to give us: http://tinyurl.com/nfu4u4s
LikeLike
How dare you propose we limit anybody’s right to go to a four-year college? I don’t want occupational tracking of ANY kind, which is what all the educational reform nonsense is really about.
LikeLike
Why wouldn’t the gov. subsidize students who attend four year colleges?
What’s the dif?
LikeLike
They are aiming to push up K12 “reform” policies into community colleges first, where professors are mostly non-tenured contingent faculty who are hired from term to term (i.e., not even a full semester at many schools), so they can be manipulated and easily fired based on students’ standardized test scores and VAM. Four year colleges have a lot more faculty with tenure, who cannot be manipulated or fired since their tenure is actually for life. If the “reformers” wait, with a significant loss in college freshman and sophomores, four year colleges are likely to feel pressured to stop granting tenure and increase their numbers of contingent faculty.
Since contingent faculty already amount to 70% of faculty in colleges across this country, and baby boomers are now retiring, there is not very far to go to complete the deprofessionalism of teachers in higher ed.
LikeLike
Diane, I thank you for printing this and see it as another example of your integrity. Many journalists with less openness to dissent would have ignored or buried this. That you haven’t earns you more of my respect. Your voice is a vital one. thank you.
Ben
LikeLike
We need to ALWAYS remember that, just like neoliberals in the GOP, the neoliberal Democrats see P-20 education as gold that is just waiting to be mined and they are ALL about enabling their corporate sponsors and entrepreneurial privatizers to increase profits. Despite the rhetoric; they have already proved that they are NOT about the quality or cost of education for states, communities or students. Thus, their education policies will follow the same formula in higher ed as in K12, starting in community colleges and then progressing to four year colleges. This means data mining, standardized tests, VAM and the deprofessionalism of teachers, as indicated in that very alarming video of Gates.
Be sure to watch more of the video than just what was highlighted at the start time on this page, including what comes just before that, because Gates has really BIG plans…
LikeLike
It’s less that than it is to take away any education higher than the seventh grade for the vast majority of people. Eventually there will be no charter schools. If you can’t pay for your kids’ education, they can work in the sweatshops. This is where this country is headed, folks.
LikeLike
American students are so lazy, Obama has basically proposed extending free and remedial education until 14th grade.
LikeLike
Broad brush much? Geez.
LikeLike
Point taken. But, as Carrie Shefield says in Forbes,
“Younger Europeans complete high school with the equivalent skill set of an American community college graduate.”
LikeLike
http://www.forbes.com/sites/carriesheffield/2015/01/09/three-problems-with-president-obamas-free-community-college-pitch/
LikeLike
The whole point is to destroy the system of public colleges and universities and limit any higher education for the masses. I fully expect a return to child labor now that kids as young as four are being tested and tracked into an economic caste system. Neoliberalism is the most evil ideology ever to come down the pike.
LikeLike
PLEASE, folks, watch the whole Gates video VERY carefully, because in it:
Gates mentions tracking repeatedly –a sure indicator of massive testing and rank and yank.
Gates thinks colleges need financial pressures to put their lectures online, in order to increase class sizes and save money. (Clearly, he has learned nothing from the failure of MOOCs.)
He believes a “mentor” would be a good enough teacher. (Then home schooling mommies will get to become college professors.)
Gates does not like how education and degrees are “bundled.”
He plans to establish alternative accrediting bodies to certify learning –which he claims will have just as much prestige as colleges.
This man is really sick. People who care about education need to do a lot more than just shake their heads in disbelief when Gates comes out with this garbage. He really intends to see his plans through to fruition –and he has the money and power to do so. That is very likely to result in the destruction of every level of formal education in this country, except, no doubt, private schools geared towards elites.
This guy really needs to be stopped NOW!
LikeLike
Please don’t bash homeschooling “mommies.” Homeschooling has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion of community college.
LikeLike
When virtually anyone can become a “mentor” in the further education scheme that Gates plans, it means that everyone from corporations like Microsoft to home schooling mommies could serve in that role. The main difference from today would be that, since tracking will be a primary focus, his “prestigious” alternative accrediting bodies will be requiring that standardized tests be used as the primary determinant of success, which is very likely to turn this track of higher learning into massive test prep.
If 5 week trained TFAers can handle providing that kind of narrowed education in charter schools, surely Microsoft and home schooling mommies can, too. However, that is more about granting accreditation to job training programs, which employers should be paying for, not tax dollars. It is also not the harbinger of a well-rounded further education, and students who are sick of drill and kill or who don’t test well are likely to be left at the wayside.
LikeLike
BTW, I don’t think the plans for tracking and requiring standardized tests as measures of success in further education will be limited to one track. “Reformers” really prize their current K12 model, which incorporates the stack ranking that Gates promoted at Microsoft, so it is very likely to be required at all levels of higher education. That will effectively shut many students out of such employment training programs, as well as college, and create a hefty resource of peons for low paid jobs at Walmart etc.
LikeLike
Your phrase, “homeschooling mommies” sounds extremely demeaning. I certainly hope that was not your intent.
LikeLike
Home schooling mommies are a pervasive reality. In my state, home schooled students are exempt from testing and other regulations that public schools must meet. I have had a number of home schooled students in my college courses at Community College and other schools where no ACT/SAT scores were required for admittance. Some were okay academically while others had serious gaps. Some had never attended school themselves yet wanted to become school teachers. For many, their concept of teaching focused on lectures, workbooks and drill for skill, even in Art –for preschoolers.
In my experience, the value of mommy made diplomas varies tremendously, regardless of family income. As with a lot of disadvantaged kids living in poverty who come from schools in blighted communities, standardized testing would have filtered out many of those students and prevented them from furthering their education.
LikeLike
I get the impression that you have higher expectations for homeschooled students vs public school students. I wonder how many public schooled students also had gaps in their education. Standardized testing does not prove academic ability, as so many studies have shown. Since private schools are also exempt from the same regulations that public schools must meet, I wonder if you would be so condescending to refer to them as private school “mommies?”
LikeLike
Get off your own high horse. You’re the one making assumptions. My students told me their mothers were the ones who home schooled them, since their fathers worked, and “mommy” was the word many of them used. There is nothing wrong with the word “mommies.”
LikeLike
The terms “mommy grades” and “kitchen credits” are often used among families that homeschool.
LikeLike
The primary point was totally lost due to this rather bizarre tangent and it’s a valid concern that needs to be reiterated: Gates thinks that virtually anyone can be a mentor who teaches post-secondary education, as long as students are tested and tracked. I think this means we can expect to see TFA equivalents, high-stakes standardized testing, VAM, data mining, etc. around the corner for colleges, just because Gates says so. As with all of his other schemes, this is likely to affect other people’s children, not his own.
I truly shudder at the thought of this college dropout having so much control over education at all levels in this country, solely because of his wealth. Those are ill-gotten gains and he continues to demonstrate his lack of a moral compass. The fawning over him on the video made me gag. Is everyone going to willingly eat his Monsanto GMOs as well?
LikeLike
Again, your tone comes across as mocking those women who choose to homeschool. Would you ever refer to any other female as “mommy?” I truly find it hard to believe, as the mother and educator of a sixteen year old son attending community college as a dual enrolled student, that you have older teen students talking about their “mommies.”
LikeLike
Also, in order to register for classes, my son had to either take placement tests in both English and Math, or submit SAT scores. I do not know how it works at your Community College.
LikeLike
It was very evident that you took personal offense instead of considering the broader issue raised about who will be qualified to teach post-secondary education in the Gates scheme, which is based on standardized testing.
Just like I believe that training and skills are import for teaching in K12 schools, I do not think that just anyone should be teaching college, whether mommies, daddies, Microsoft employees, TFAers or anyone else, merely because they have a heartbeat. That is what is likely to happen though, simply because Gates and those whom he has bought have decided that teacher qualifications don’t matter when success is measured by standardized test scores.
No ones needs to take standardized tests to attend Community Colleges in my city, and I have welcomed high school students in my classes. I cringe at the thought of that changing just because of the naive notions of Bill Gates and his monetary influence on education.
LikeLike
Michael Hiltzik is wondering why stop at 2 year colleges? California used to have a stellar FREE university system. Quoting from California’s Master Plan for Higher Ed, he writes, “Charging tuition at a public university is] an incomprehensible repudiation of the whole philosophy of a successful democracy premised upon an educated citizenry.” http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-obamas-free-education-proposal-20150109-column.html
“Free higher education to qualified students was also the rule in California, where the University of California had no tuition for state residents until Gov. Ronald Reagan demanded it in the early 1970s. Once the door was cracked open for tuition charges, it swung wide…”
LikeLike
Many excellent points here. Frankly, my first thought was that such a complicated proposal would demand a lot more record-keeping and federal oversight of the community colleges, and to what practical end? Given the track record of NCLB and RTTT, this does not sound positive. Why not just let states and localities repair their broken revenue systems and fund all levels of education as they ought to be funded?
Second, the politics seems very dubious. Obama makes this grand proposal, but the R’s in Congress have to pass it, and what will it look like at the end of the line? Several posters have pointed out that the “Tennessee model” is no model at all for education at any level.
Sigh. Looks like we will just have to remain at the barricades.
LikeLike
What’s the solution to make college affordable?
LikeLike
True. Or in the broader sense, post high school career preparation, whatever that may be. Students need the government to fund the path of their choosing.
LikeLike
I went to Purdue & the State of Indiana paid my tuition, which back in the mid 1970’s included a football ticket. My high school guidance counselor had me apply & based upon my grades & financial need, the State must have thought I was a good bet & kicked in that money. I was on work-study & worked in the dorm kitchen. This made all the difference for my blue collar family in being able to get me to campus & have me go through a four year college experience as opposed to a commuter campus while living at home. I will forever be grateful to my parents who sacrificed saving for retirement (although my dad had a pension that protects my mom to this day) & the taxpayers of Indiana who valued public education for sending me to a major public university.
Indiana got way more than their money back on their investment in me, too. I stayed in Indiana, married, payed taxes, went to graduate school at IU Bloomimgton, bought homes, cars, spent pay checks in stores, raised kids & sent them to IU & worked in public schools as a speech language pathologist for over 30 years here in Bloomington. I’m ready to get the heck out, too! Three more years!
That’s how we make college affordable. We all help pay & complete the circle. We lift up the next generation.
LikeLike
The flow of government money to four year colleges includes research support that community colleges don’t compete for. Tenured professors are required to do much besides teach in four year colleges. The problems of adjunct pay, benefits and working conditions form a separate set of issues.
LikeLike
I agree with some of the ideas in the post. However, if POTUS is for privitazation of Community colleges, then why has the DOE made it so difficult for technical colleges such as Corinthian (CCI) to stay in business. Is it just because of the questionable ethics involving student loans and other problems? In some cases the errors were self corrected and self reported by the company. Perhaps I am misunderstanding what privitizing means. It seems as if Arne Duncan is working to do away with his department and have all education run by businesses.
I thought the fed. Gov’t. only wanted federally run schools, k-12 and beyond. What common core can do is change college entrance testing such that private school students will not test well, and the private colleges will lose money and reduce their size or close. Isn’t that why Duncan wants CC, testing,etc.?
I tend to want smaller government,and have a live and let live opinion. We should have public schools. I went to and work at one. Have private schools. I also went to and worked at one. They should not be housed in the same building. (That’s crazy.) The quality of the product that each produces will decide which continues and flourishes. example: do you want the Harvard lawyer or Xstate lawyer?
Please correct my thinking. I want to know where I am wrong. Please also do not read an negative emotions into the typing.
LikeLike
I don’t have time right now to describe this convoluted big picture, but you can get views of it from reading what others have posted here and from listening very closely to all that Gates said in the video.
I think Corinthian is equivalent to the Lehman’s sacrificial lamb of for-profit colleges. So that the Feds don’t look like they’ve done nothing, they allowed one “too big to fail” business to implode and then let the other crooks off with a warning.
LikeLike
Privatizing simply means channeling public funds to private companies. Charter schools are a way doing this, but public colleges outsource more and more of their functions (research, teaching) to private companies. Private colleges or schools are NOT examples for privatization.
LikeLike
“Colemanity College”
“Free college for the masses”
Is what the poster said
With Pearsonalized classes
Instructed by the Fed
LikeLike
While some people might see this as a stretch, I’d like to suggest another level of cynicism behind Obama’s proposal.
The Great Chameleon knows that his community college proposal is never going to happen, and couldn’t care less, but it might have the potential to provide some cover and political capital to allow pwogwessives to vote for what Obama hopes to be his and his patrons’ real prize and payoff: the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which his administration is lobbying to have Congress grant fast-track authorization.
The TPP is a “free” trade deal that is literally being drafted in secret – members of congress and their staffs are not being allowed to see the draft proposals, which are being written by representatives of the companies that stand to benefit from the deal – and would insulate corporations from national consumer, labor and environmental regulations, or whatever will be left of them. It would be NAFTA on steroids, testosterone and (in)human growth hormone.
Short of Obama succeeding in pushing through a Grand Betrayal of Social Security, which is the Jewel in the Crown of neoliberalism in this country, this would be the centerpiece of Obama’s toxic legacy.
LikeLike
As a previous public school teacher and currently an adjunct at two universities, I very much disagree with Pres. Obama’s idea regarding the two years of govt. paid community college. Education is good for everyone but…..there is a cost for it. If it is free, the adage “you get what you pay for” comes into play and naturally the quality, rigor, and academic work is reduced. I would be willing to adopt something that allows students to sign up, take classes, and keep at least a 2.5 GPA and FINISH the two year program on their dime – with loans or whatever, then cancel the loans, but only if they successfully complete the program. Courses should NOT be watered down. When there is an investment in the education from the student, usually they are more successful. If they don’t make the GPA or drop out, then the bill is on them. There must be some sort of investment from those who receive the education! Then the reward is appropriate Almost all of my students work and receive need-based scholarship, and have loans. They are VERY hard workers. They know they have a goal and have invested in it.
LikeLike
I looked but was unable to locate any evidence that the high dropout rate which exists at some Community Colleges in California today was also an issue when California colleges were tuition free.
At a college where I teach, there is a problem with students who do the bare minimum at the beginning of their courses, in order to meet federal requirements, and then dropping those courses immediately after they have received their student loan disbursements.
LikeLike
Lb
Sent from my iPhone
>
LikeLike
To call a community college education as “low quality” is infuriating to me, a full time community college instructor/ program manager. Where are you getting this idea? I would happily stack my classes up against any of the local public university to compare learning outcomes and student satisfaction. My class sizes are under 20. The majority of my program is taught by full-time instructors. The major difference that I see between us and the university counterparts is that we truly care about student success and work with the students individually to make their goals happen. We cost less and care more. Of course this is annecdotal, but when students come to us from our local 4 year university, they are so relieved to finally experience quality education and people who care about them that I have had students break down in tears. So, I have to really object to your characterization of community colleges as being categorically “low quality.” Furthermore, when our students transfer to the public university to complete their 4 year degree, they end up having a higher graduation rate than the 4 year student who started at public U. What does that say?
Further, I have seen several comments talking about “free” education, and about how nothing is free. Of course not, but have you considered the cost of NOT providing school through 14? We no longer live in an agrian society. Our country needs our children to be education through 14 to be economically competitive in a global society. Not to mention the enormous costs that result from our young people being saddled with debt. I would argue that there is tremendous cost to our country if eligible students are not able to afford to pursue a degree.
On a side note, I actually intend on pursuing my PhD in education, and I would be perfectly happy to continue teaching at a community college if I am able to fulfill my research goals. I hope I never look down upon others just because I have a few extra letters behind my name.
Perhaps we should weigh such negative comments about greater access to education via community college with the context in which they are being made. Obviously, with more people going to community college, job competition at the university level is going to be much tighter. And it will be tough to get a job at the local community college with such an elitest, arrogant attitude.
LikeLike
Your first sentence about describing them broadly as “low quality” was my initial reaction, too, and still has me shaking my head.
LikeLike
Prof. Wierdl is just wrong about the low quality education issue at the community colleges. But I do certainly think his caution is warranted. We need to understand all the implications and be clear that this actually helps. I have to say our extremely right-wing legislature in Ohio – which should be reflecting the kind of conceptions Wierdl attributes to the right-wingers – is so far not supportive of the idea. The Ohio Speaker of the House immediately came out in opposition, using some bizarre Randian logic – that it is not a real opportunity unless it saddles you with debt. Bizarre.
We also need to keep Gates and people like him with no experience in higher education out of higher education. His comments already reveal a bizarre idea about how adjuncts are hired and not reappointed.
LikeLike
While Sarah makes some strong points with her citation of higher graduation rates, she weakens her argument by attacking the character of our public university professor. Adjunct and tenured need each other to fight for stronger higher education. New educators and veterans can be true colleagues who exchange ideas and grow. But only in an atmosphere of respect for education and those who make it their career.
In today’s environment, all the stake holders, especially communities, have to be vocal and organized in their advocacy for the best education possible for every student. Practiced, valued educators with the academic freedom they have justly earned are the only ones who can provide it.
LikeLike
I admit I was angry and insulted when I wrote the above. Perhaps he was simply not aware of the growing emphasis of online classes at the university level or the high levels of adjunct instruction (which is often excellent and valuable) at the university level. This is not a community college problem, but a general problem in higher education. In fact, the best Public U school in my state offers online doctoral degrees.
Access to online education makes more sense at the community college level where there is a population of low-income students who are working full-time with families. It is an issue of accessibility to education, so I think online classes have a lot of value. I do try to steer my students to in-person classes, but many students wouldn’t be able to attend school at all without access to online classes.
To dismiss community college as “low quality” is unacceptable for a professional in higher education. Somebody in his position has great influence and power and should be more careful before he speaks.
LikeLike
I agree, Sarah, that I used the wrong terminology to describe CC education. It was completely unintentional, and I hope my friends teaching at comm colleges and in high schools won’t stop talking to me as a result. Online courses, on the other hand, are a different issue. Please see my post below for more details.
LikeLike
The Community Colleges in my city pared down years ago, to save money, and typically have just one full faculty member per department now, with everyone else hired as contingent faculty without job security or benefits. Many universities in my area have similar skeletal crews as well.
With 70% of professors in this country now hired as contingent faculty, it’s about time full timers united with part timers to save higher ed from greedy free market loving neoliberals in both parties who are willing to sell out their own parents and cut Social Security to save a buck, as well as privatize the public education that other people’s children benefit from, so their corporate cronies can raid tax dollars. We really should have united years ago, amongst ourselves, as well as with K12 educators. Hope it’s not too late for that now.
LikeLike
cx: Sorry, that should be full time faculty, not “full faculty”
LikeLike
I also wish to speak to the fact that our Public U professor complains that he has to “ease” community college students into his math classes.
Often, the reason many of our students decide to come to community college is because they have not had strong records in their previous education. Maybe they have barriers, like poverty or having children as children. Maybe they had learning disabilities. Maybe they have had a tough life. School doesn’t come easily to most of our community college students.
But you know what? They are going to school anyway. They have decided to struggle and make their dreams happen. And if they graduate from community college and end up at Public U, guess what? Their dreams are happening. Their dreams are actually coming true because they worked very hard to get there.
I apologize if I have seemed angry in my comments, but I hope Public U teacher finds it in his heart to adjust his attitude. Maybe the reason why the community college students in his classroom struggle, is not because they received a sub-par community college education, but because the student worked very hard to be able to make it that far when the odds seemed stacked against him. Maybe, he made it because someone at the community college level really worked hard with him, and made him believe in himself.
When our community college students make it to the Public U, I hope that Public U professors can find it in their heart to give these students a little bit of grace. Answer their questions. Be accessible. Don’t look down upon them. Nobody is asking for more than that.
LikeLike
As far as I can tell, you misunderstood the situation. I don’t think we currently have any problems with students who are continuing their education at the university after completing CC. The problem is that we are pressured into accepting a lower level (by content, not quality) CC course in place of an existing higher level course.
LikeLike
I think the professor makes some interesting points in his letter. This very well could be a “Trojan Horse” just at Race to the Top was. However, I don’t think that community colleges are restricted to serving low income or low achieving students. I am a teacher with two elementary aged daughters. I assume I am solidly part of the middle class. We opened 529 plans for both of them soon after each of their births. We put $50 a month in each account in addition to whatever financial gifts they receive from relatives for birthdays and Christmas. By my estimate each child will have in the neighborhood of $20,000 by the time they graduate from high school. I had already planned on sending them to our local community college while they live at home (of course, they may have other ideas). That would have taken a good chunk of the $20,000. If the free tuition were available we would be able to bank the $20,000, add to it, and have it available for them to pursue a 4 year degree once they complete their community college experience. They might be able to graduate debt free and employable, something almost no one is able to do these days.
I’m wary, but interested in this proposal. Perhaps watching Tennessee closely will reveal some clues.
LikeLike
First let me clue you all in…..I believe that TN Promise was not the brain child of Gov. Haslam. It was the brain child of DC and they convinced Gov. Haslam to roll it out. This way (just like Common Core) they can tell the public it was not motivated in DC. Does the Pilot Oil scandal ring any bells to people. This reminds me of my assumptions about why Gates is funding education. Remember back (2001) the federal government was trying to break up Microsoft? Hmmmm…never happened did it. Well it appears to me that both Gates and Haslam were made an offer they could not refuse. Now to the issue of FREE (it is not FREE) tuition. The reason we have high college tuition is because of the government funding of education. When the government purse is open it is funny how the price of everything multiplies. If you get government out of education completely you will see the quality soar up and prices soar down. It is called free market. It is always the best way for the public but of course not for those that want control and to make a ton of money off of the tax payer. It is obvious to anyone that is paying attention that Common Core standards are meant to prepare our children for the first year of Community College. Read the document put out by NCEE (Marc Tucker) in 2013. He says it better than I can and he is behind this reform we see today and have seen since the Clinton years where Marc Tucker drove the education bus for Hillary and Bill. The document is called: What Does It Really Mean To Be College And Career Ready. Pay attention and read it carefully. The idea of dumbing down our kids because “after all they don’t use most of that useless garbage they learn…..like Algebra II” whispers all throughout this document. And Jason Zimba admitted to the MA State School Board in 2010 that Common Core is NOT for STEM or for a good college….it is good for the college most students attend but not for colleges most parents aspire to send their kids to. PEOPLE WAKE UP. what the federal government funds the federal government runs. Our Community Colleges will now be own and operated by the federal government. If parents want to drive down costs and improve education they should start calling their US Representative and US Senators and demand they shut down the US Dept. of Education and repeal ESEA/NCLB. Unitl you do that we will NEVER fix education in America.
LikeLike
Great points by the professor! I attended private Evangelical Christian and Catholic schools for my undergraduate degree, and public state universities for graduate studies. The larger issue in higher education is the fact my professors, who were quite bright, did not provide the majority of the skills that I needed in field of nonprofit work. While they honed me for research capabilities, my professors never worked in a nonprofit organization, yet they had never worked in one their lives. They didn’t understand major gift giving, social media marketing, etc. The key to great higher education are brilliant professors who know the book work and balance it with actual skill. While I was not a nursing student, the nursing program at the Catholic college was able to do this fact. They had the highest employment placement in the college.
Here is what I believe to be true! Common Core and Community College is tied together. I predict there will be three paths for our students (1.) Score high enough on the National CCS test and you will go to four-year university. (2.) Score below a certain market, yet have capabilities to do well in life, students will go on to Community College. (3.) Don’t score well enough for option one or two, and you get to work in retail or fast food. (Side Note: I now understand why Wal-mart is a major contributor to education reform.)
LikeLike
Rereading my email, it’s clear, I chose my terminology poorly to describe the issues. I am hoping that replacing the word “quality” by “level” will help in forgiving my unintended arrogance. In case I am not forgiven, my plan B is to blame the terms “high school” or “higher education” as they imply an unfair qualification of the various stages of education.
Seriously, in this era of devaluating educators, the last thing I want to do is divide us so that we can be conquered.
While many of the posts here clarified the issues surrounding free public (higher) education, I think the following add some additional material. I try to proceed from the most general, underlying problem to the more specific ones. For clarity, I remark that by privatization, I mean the process of channeling public (taxpayers’) money to private hands.
1) Gates vs democracy
I think it’s worth listening to Gates’ 2012 talk from the beginning—however boring or frustrating it may be. Not only university presidents listen to him, but so does Obama. This means that whatever Gates talks about is likely to come our way. This fact highlights the fundamental problem: few influential people decide what happens in education and hence they completely bypass the democratic process. Until these people can get away with this and they aren’t held accountable, any funds allocated for public education is likely taken away from other social programs and likely to end up in private hands.
2) Free higher education.
I really don’t see how else can equal access to higher education be provided other than making it free. But in order to make higher education free, appropriate laws and public oversight need to be implemented to make sure the democratic decision making process doesn’t get bypassed and public money doesn’t end up in private hands.
Free higher education is certainly not as expensive as politicians might try to tell us.
I note that I graduated from a free higher education system.
3) Controlling faculty is a prerequisite to privatization
At a given college, the process of privatization probably will not begin openly. It probably begins with a control of the faculty via unified assessment.
At my university, the controlling of faculty has begun with the implementation of a corporate budget scheme. Under this scheme, individual departments receive their funding based on their “educational performance”. The main basis for performance assessment is the number of majors graduating from the department and the generated external funds. In other words, the admins(!) want to evaluate education using arbitrary statistics that have no connection with true educational value. This corresponds to the VAM-like evaluation of K-12 educators. To make the correspondence more apparent, note that we also see the beginning of the standardized test scheme: to conform to some newly acquired accreditation requirements, we are told that our final exams have to contain certain questions, and we have to report back on students’ scores on them.
4) Privatization: outsourcing and the connection with K-12 reforms
Similarly to outsourcing some functions (like recruiting) in K-12, certain college functions are outsourced. At my university, this started with outsourcing web page design, student recruiting, implementation of the corporate budget scheme, but most recently our university has been trying to implement a teacher training program to man high-need schools in the Memphis area. The program is to be run independently from our ed department by TNTP and Relay, and would cost $5 million/year to TN taxpayers.
If we allow these outsourcings, how far are we from outsourcing whole colleges, that is, from the concept of a charter college?Five years? Ten?
5) Privatization: graduation rates as corporate agenda
In TN we are constantly reminded that increasing the graduation rates is necessary to provide a highly qualified work force for local corporations. I doubt taxpayers agree that 4-year colleges should be free training facilities for corporations. Who wants to limit the applicability of a, say, engineering degree to a given corporation or even to a given state?
6) Privatization: adjunct faculty, online courses
Education provided by adjunct faculty, online courses are, in general, of lower quality (I dare to use the terminology here). Online courses are not the 21st century way to a brighter future but compromises that are to be avoided at any cost. They could be appropriate to some people, but the vast majority of the students prefer personal interaction, live conversation with a teacher. The age-old way of Socrates to knowledge hasn’t changed.
LikeLike
Relay is an employer training program which prepares people in the ONE acceptable pedagogy that is implemented in no-excuses charter schools, primarily by temps from TFA and TNTP, the Behavioral oriented military style approach to discipline and teaching (i,e,. test prep). No teacher should have one tool in their toolbelt and expect to be able to reach all learners, and no state should be paying millions of dollars for an employer training program in college.
LikeLike
This is to Mate Wierdl: I am a Harvard (private institution) graduate. I am not sure if a graduate of UofM (public institution, i.e., the tax payers get whacked) can even spell Harvard.
LikeLike
There is no greater evidence of the hubris and moral turpitude of smug, elitist Harvard grads than when they are speaking for themselves.
LikeLike
Wall Street Journal editorial ” The Obama College Plan”. Jan 12 2015. Google it. Would seem to concur with Professor.
LikeLike
In light of the case of Julia Sass Rubin, http://bobbraunsledger.com/the-war-against-critics-of-charter-schools/, I am issuing the following disclaimer: “My comments and opinions are my own and do not reflect the official position of my employer, the University of Memphis.”
LikeLike
Where is the discussion about vocational schools instead of community, state, and private colleges? I question the concept of college for everyone. The idea that those without a college degree are in some way “inferior” needs to be addressed.
LikeLike
It seems to me that the entire approach is misguided. Rather than only fund community college education, why not simply provide every student a sum of money equal to that required to attend the best state research universities for 4 years. Students have that pool of money to use for any college choice anywhere. If a student chooses CC for two years, that student would have a larger pool of money for the next two years and may choose their private college dream school. Alternatively, students who choose a 4 year university would use all their money for that. This also encourages student to excel so that they are accepted into the best college that matches their abilities and career goals.
There are differences between a CC and 4 year univeristy education, some of which are not related to the classroom. The experience is different and some students’ needs are best served at each type.
My concern with the proposed program is that it essentially ends the conversation about providing free undergraduate educate to complete a bachelor’s degree by substituting a less expensive two year proposal for a CC education. Our country needs an educated populace…other countries have recognized this need in their countries and an entire undergraduate (and for some graduate, legal and medical) education is priced accordingly, free. Students who graduate without debt make better choices for employment because crushing debt is not driving the decisions. Our brightest and most capable will pursue education almost uniformly and if post- graduate work is also funded for capable students who have worked hard to obtain a high level of achievement during undergraduate, our country will blossom.
LikeLike
Vik is absolutely right. Without worrying about Trojan Horses, we can still be concerned about unintended consequences. We absolutely need to put more government support into public education; we are reaping the negative consequences of years of de-funding. But simply a “free community college” plan will create new problems. It will do something very good: provide help and incentive to go to college for those who were not able to afford it. But it will also create an incentive for those planning on attending four-year colleges to start at two-years instead. The two-years will already be struggling with the increased numbers of the intended audience; they can’t pick up an additional 10 or 20% of the enrollment at the local regional state university. Nor can those universities–already underfunded–absorb a sudden decrease in enrollment without further compromising quality. The pool of money is exactly the right approach.
LikeLike
Sorry for the repeat, but I think this might get lost in the discussion, as I replied to another post by mistake instead of just posting:
Where is the discussion about vocational schools instead of community, state, and private colleges? I question the concept of college for everyone. The idea that those without a college degree are in some way “inferior” needs to be addressed. Why not create a vocational school system with free tuition, as well?
LikeLike