Education

On a scale of sincerity to glamorous, let's rate pop stars' cry-faces.

Students need institutions to tell them what to do.That was the underlying theme of the GPS (Guided Pathways to Success) conference held by Complete College America yesterday in sweltering, hot, muggy, Orlando. As with GPS devices, the idea is that much student attrition is due to them simply getting lost and wasting time and resources going down blind alleys. If students can be provided much more direction, the argument goes, they’ll be likelier to get where they’re trying to go.Fans of behavioral economics will recognize the impulse immediately. Barry Schwartz, the author of The Paradox of Choice, opened by noting that when faced with too many options, people quickly become overwhelmed and effectively decide not to choose. He cited a study in which some consumers were presented with thirty different brands of jelly to choose from, and others were only given four. The group that was only given four choices wound up buying more jelly; the group given thirty mostly just walked away. Faced with a situation in which there was no realistic way to make a choice that placed them safely beyond regret, they chose not to choose.In the context of jelly, we can file that under “who cares?” But in the context of matriculation, in which successful pursuit takes thousands of dollars and several years, choosing not to choose is a terrible option. Schwartz emphasized that even though it may seem counterintuitive and even paternalistic, students are actually much more empowered by choosing among fewer and more carefully constructed options. The rest of the conference was devoted to variations on the theme. In brief, factors that contribute to student completion include full-time status, tightly prescribed courses of study with a minimum of options, “rationalized” (that is, streamlined) general education requirements, intrusive advising, academic maps, and “meta-majors.” In each case, the idea is to make the path obvious and clear, and to make the high-probability choice the easiest choice to make.In fairness, most of these don’t involve mandates. (Gen Ed requirements obviously do.) To use Cass Sunstein’s word, the idea is to “nudge” students in a particular direction. Tristan Denley, from Austin Peay University in Tennessee, made the idea concrete with a “recommendation engine” he had developed. The idea was that the engine would crunch data based on student gpa and test scores, historical performance of similar students, and degree requirements for given majors, and would recommend courses tailored to each individual student. (Denley noted that the engine does not look at race, gender, or age of student, in order to prevent feeding stereotypes.) It’s sort of like when Netflix suggests a movie you might like, based on what you’ve seen and rated to that point. As with Netflix, you’re free to override the suggestion, but people often find them helpful. In the case of course selection, the idea is to replace a panoply of options with a “default” option that is likeliest, statistically, to lead that student towards graduation. At Austin Peay, they’ve identified “fingerprint” courses that they’ve found give students the strongest indication as to whether a particular major is for them; the recommendation engine finds those especially helpful.The “meta-major” idea is a way to get around the morass of “undecided” students. If a given student doesn’t know exactly what he wants, but he knows it’s likely to be something in the sciences, then he can be placed into a science meta-major that puts him on track to choose among the specific sciences without losing too much time. As Denley put it, it helps categorize undecided students into one of several flavors.I couldn’t help but notice how many of the GPS innovations were direct or indirect results of legislative mandates in various states. That was especially clear in the context of “streamlining,” which could reasonably be expected to generate significant faculty pushback. Althoug

So a  journalist walks into classroom… and it dramatically changes the way she sees the world. Heather Sinclair Wood, a journalist at CNN, shares 6 lessons she learned as a classroom teacher. (CNN) Are we losing something critical to the nation’s health? Yes, if we don’t act to raise the value of the humanities and social sciences, says a report released today by the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. The report provides policy recommendations for both K-12 and higher education.  (Inside Higher Ed) H.R 5, the GOP’s ESEA bill. Organizations expressing support for the Democratic substitute, and organizations expressing opposition. (Committee on Education and the Workforce Democrats) “People hate change, but that’s not a compelling reason to maintain the status quo.” A high school teacher wonders whether we need to shift the way children are taught to think about gender in school. (Education Week) Anne Mishkind, ES policy intern, contributed to this report.

In this end-of-school season where one graduation ceremony blurs into the next, 11-year-old Caleb Davy made one sweeter than all the rest. At John Eaton Elementary School in Washington D.C., the fifth grade class held its commencement ceremony on Wednesday … Continue reading →

Another sticker for a successful writing week! And a lesson (re)learned:When it got to my turn today, I read out last week's goal, realised I'd met it, and immediately said "but it was such an easy goal that it doesn't really count, so perhaps I shouldn't have a sticker this week". Fortunately the rest of the group were quick to challenge that, with one person saying "perhaps that was the first REALISTIC goal you set this year!" and "you're always saying that it's OK to set a goal of three sentences, because they all add up, and meeting goals = gets a sticker". Interestingly, I don't think I really meant it - it was just a kind of reflexive 'if I did it it can't be because I did well, it must be that it was easy...' which I think women are particularly prone to. So one sticker earned and one lesson relearned. This one will probably need repeating in a few months' time... but still, today I will focus on what I did and not on what I didn't or what some imaginary Perfect JaneB who does not accidentally eat chocolate bars because her admin task is boring or falsely diminish or exaggerate her accomplishments or stay up til 1am playing stupid computer games (Butterfly Kyodai right now) would have done in fantasy-land where she didn't have to field emails from multiple project students with crises, all asking if I am 'enjoying the summer'. IT IS NOT SUMMER YET. I have an away day tomorrow, a major exam meeting Friday and a faculty training day next Tuesday. Despite the warmth, temperature and proximity to the solstice it is not properly summer yet, OK? So I do not have to enjoy it. I will just enjoy my star instead. Little things!

Last year the U.S. Department of Education tightened eligibility requirements for federal PLUS loans, leading to a significant increase in rejection rates, from 28 to 38 percent.  Many families and higher-education institutions were shocked to find that parents approved for Parent PLUS loans one year were suddenly denied the next. Some sectors, like historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs), were hit harder than others. In response to concerns over the changes, the Education Department added PLUS loan eligibility criteria to a list of potential topics to be considered for regulatory action. As part of this process, the Education Department asked for written comments and held four public hearings to allow individuals to provide testimony. One of these hearings was held at Spelman College, an HBCU in Atlanta. I attended the day-long meeting, where scores of representatives from HBCUs criticized the changes made to the credit requirements for Parent PLUS Loans.The testimony from the president of Clark Atlanta University was representative of the day’s tone: “The drastic decision to change the credit regulations for Parent PLUS loans without effective evaluation of its impact nationally and specifically on HBCUs and without prior communication and input has resulted in a tornadic effect …A one-year drop in over 50 percent of approved Parent PLUS applications, [and] more than $50 million in revenue lost.” It was a storyline repeated throughout the day—not only did the PLUS loan change inhibit access to college for low-income students, but it also caused institutions to lose millions of dollars in revenue.While the Department of Education was opaque in the changes it made to the credit requirements that caused the rug to be pulled out from under many students, the subsequent bad publicity surrounding the Department’s bungled implementation masked an equally important part of the PLUS loan story. The changes were modest and were meant to prevent overburdening low-income families with significant amounts of debt.The Department was right in trying to prevent parents from borrowing loans they cannot afford. Unlike federal student loans, Parent PLUS loans are borrowed by parents. PLUS loans allow parents whose children are already eligible for student loans to borrow even more. Since parents are investing in the future of their child, not in their own human capital, it means that their earnings—and the ability to repay loans—are largely unchanged by their child’s education. Since parents don’t receive direct financial benefit from the loan in terms of increased income, it’s not good federal policy to saddle parents with debt they can’t afford—debt that is seldom dischargeable in bankruptcy and that doesn’t qualify for the protections of other federal student loans, including a lower interest rate and income-sensitive repayment.While it makes sense for the federal government to provide students access to loans without consideration of their current ability to pay, this should not be the case for parents. Because an “Ability to Pay” metric is not currently included in approval for Parent PLUS loans, the Department had to figure out other criteria to identify whether parents could pay off these loans. Before October 2011, prospective parent borrowers couldn’t have any current accounts more than 90 days delinquent, or any foreclosures, bankruptcies, tax liens, wage garnishments or defaults in the past five years. After October 2011, the Department expanded its definition of what was considered a 90-day delinquency to include accounts whose most recent status was “in collections” or “charged off” in the last five years. This means that if a parent went into collections in the past five years and fixed her status, then she would be approved. But if a parent went into collections within the past five years and never managed to rehabilitate the status—indicative of continued financial troubles—she would be ineligible for a Parent PLUS

San Jose State’s popular animation program is turning away transfer students with less than a 3.85 grade-point average, reports the San Jose Mercury News. Years of hard work earned Mary Hale an associate degree in 3-D animation and video game art, a 3.8 GPA and a magna cum laude distinction. But it didn’t get her the one thing she was counting on for her future: a coveted spot in San Jose State’s highly regarded animation program. Only 12 percent of community college transfer applicants made the cut. Hale, a graduate of Cañada College in Redwood City, just missed. She’s not alone. At the Silicon Valley university and four other California State University campuses, “there are more applicants than spaces in every major, from philosophy to computer science,” reports the Mercury News. More than 200 majors across the Cal State system — twice as many as four years ago — are turning away applicants. San Jose State’s animation-illustration program admitted only 38 percent of applicants this year, including transfers and incoming freshmen. The program has about 550 students, with a target of 60 new enrollees next fall. Students train for jobs in film, television, gaming, and Internet-based entertainment. GPA isn’t a relevant standard for evaluating artists, said Alice Carter, an SJSU art professor who started the animation program nearly 20 years ago. She said faculty considered a T-shirt protest: “Not smart enough to be an animator? Try physics! Try engineering! Try chemistry!” Rejected by San Jose State , Hale signed up for a more expensive, unaccredited online animation program.

Has the country’s second largest for-profit higher education company, Education Management Corporation (EDMC) deceived prospective students, employers, and investors by disclosing a significantly higher set of job placement rates to them than it reports to its regulators?That is one of the key allegations made in a lawsuit brought by a former EDMC admissions director that a U.S. District Court judge has just allowed to proceed.Jason Sobek, who served as a Project Associate Director of Admissions for EDMC Online Higher Education’s South University brand from June 2008 to November 2010, filed the lawsuit under the Federal False Claims Act. He is seeking the return to the government of millions of dollars in federal student aid funds that he says EDMC improperly obtained by falsely certifying that it was in compliance with U.S. Department of Education regulations.The suit says that EDMC had “two sets of books regarding job placements” – one that it used to recruit students and impress investors and employers, and another one that it reported to accrediting agencies and state regulators. According to the lawsuit, EDMC “artificially inflated” the first rate by excluding a large number of graduates from its calculations – including “single, stay-at-home parents” and those who were working in fields unrelated from what they studied. The lawsuit cites an internal “Career Services Statistical Reporting Procedures” memo that acknowledges that certain categories of graduates are “counted differently” in the different disclosures the company makes.This is not the first time that EDMC has been accused of misleading prospective students about its record of placing graduates into jobs. In September 2010, Kathleen Bittel, a then-career service advisor at EDMC’s Art Institute of Pittsburgh testified at a U.S. Senate hearing about tricks she said the company played to inflate its job placement rates. Among other things, she said EDMC put tremendous pressure on employees to persuade graduates to verify that they were working in the fields in which they trained even when it was abundantly clear that they weren’t. EDMC repeatedly denied Bittel’s allegations.The company has not yet responded definitively to Sobek’s charges. However, in its motion to dismiss the case, EDMC argued that reporting different rates to prospective students and accrediting agencies is not unlawful. “Even if true,” the company wrote, the Department of Education “never required that marketing statistics be calculated one particular way.”Education Department regulations do, however, prohibit colleges from deliberately misleading students to get them to enroll.EDMC may soon have to address the allegations more directly. That’s because late last month Judge Terrence F. McVerry of the Federal District Court in the Western District of Pennsylvania rejected EDMC’s attempt to squash the lawsuit and ruled that the whistleblower in the case provided sufficient evidence of possible wrongdoing to allow the litigation to move forward.No matter how it’s decided, this case shows once again why the federal government needs to develop a single, national standard that for-profit colleges would be required to use when calculating their job placement rates.The methodologies that career colleges currently use to determine these rates vary state by state and accreditor by accreditor, making them impossible to compare. And without a single standard in place, the schools can easily game the system.As my colleague Ben Miller reported last week, attorney generals in three states have asked the Education Department to clearly define how job placement rates should be calculated. Department officials will have that chance when they rewrite the Gainful Employment regulations. Let’s hope that they take the state attorney generals up on it.

When I was younger I definitely didn't pick up on how depressed and evil he was.

The U.S. spends more than $7 billion a year preparing classroom teachers, but teachers are not coming out of the nation's colleges of education ready, according to a by U.S.News & World Report and the National Council on Teacher Quality. The study says most schools of education are in disarray.