Education

A few days ago, Marc Tucker of the National Center on Education and the Economy wrote about supporting the Common Core State Standards—and doing whatever it takes to implement them well—simply because they reflect real-world standards. Institutions of higher education and employers have high standards. For many children from disadvantaged homes, rigorous schooling offers the [...]

Blog: StratEDgyBlogging with me this week is my friend and colleague, Marie Eiter. Marie has spent several decades in executive education, leading the effort at both MIT Sloan and Dartmouth’s Tuck School of Business, as well as leading executive development at Chase Manhattan. We’ve both spent a lot of time in and around management education and are avid watchers of – and participants in – the changes occurring in the industry. So we’ve had a lot to talk about lately. One topic of recent discussion: the Financial Times published its 15th annual ranking of the world’s leading providers of executive education programs last week and, once again, what a difference a decade makes. As is customary, there are two sets of rankings, one for customized programs that are tailored to the specific needs of a single corporation, and the other ranking is for open-enrollment programs tailored to the development needs of individual managers. While the European schools have always had strong presence in the custom program market, we were surprised to see a number of U.S. schools that have usually held top positions in the open-enrollment rankings absent from the top-half of the list. We have been watching these changes occur gradually, as every year one or two schools fall from the top 10 or the top 20. But this year, we decided to do a ten-year comparison of the 2003 open enrollment rankings and the 2013 open enrollment rankings and the differences were dramatic. In 2003, U.S. business schools dominated nine out the top ten positions. By 2013, there were only five U.S. business schools ranked the top ten. Looking further down the charts showed a similar trend. In 2003, U.S. business schools held 75% of the top 20 spots and this year the number had fallen to less than half. In fact, four U.S. schools that appeared in the top 20 in 2003 have fallen off the chart completely. Looking at the bottom half of the list, of those schools ranked 31-70, only two U.S. schools appear. However, what you quickly notice is the wide diversity of schools representing 22 different countries ranging from Norway to South Africa, from Peru to Egypt. All of this makes us wonder about a few things. Are U.S. schools quietly conceding the open-enrollment market? Or perhaps many U.S. companies are bypassing business schools to hire faculty contractors for corporate university programs, hiring lower cost training firms, and purchasing off-the shelf online programs? Does the nature of open-enrollment programs, focusing on the needs of individual managers, lend itself more to local/national institutions? Or, as we asked regarding a similar decline in the dominance of U.S. MBA programs, is this an indication of America’s decreasing clout in the business world? What do you think? Show on Jobs site:

Some students staged a quiet protest at Columbia University Teachers College commencement ceremonies Tuesday in New York to express their unhappiness with the choice of Merryl Tisch as a speaker and award recipient. The protesters opposed the choice of Tisch, … Continue reading →

Student loans are at the top of Congress' agenda this summer—and they were the number one topic when U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan testified today before the House Education and the Workforce Committee on President Barack Obama's fiscal year 2014 budget. Last week, the panel approved a measure that would head off a proposed hike in student loan interest rates by tying student loan rates to the rate for the 10-year U.S. Treasury note, something the administration also proposed in its budget request. (There are also some key differences between the measures. For instance, the House Republican bill includes a cap of 8.5 percent on student interest rates, while the administration would instead expand income-based repayment so that graduates don't have to fork over a lot of their income to pay back student loans. More here.) U.S. Rep. John Kline, R-Minn., the committee chairman, sees the proposals as essentially pretty similar. "I'd say our proposals are pretty close, and others agree," he said at the hearing.(He cited, for instance, this Washington Post editorial). Meanwhile, committee Democrats (who didn't rush to cheer the president's proposal when it came out in April, ahead of the GOP plan) have largely disparaged the House Republican proposal. In fact, Rep. George Miller of California, the top Democrat on the committee, has called it a "$4 billion tax on students" (a reference to the Congressional Budget Office's estimate that the plan would cut that much out of the loan program and redirect it to deficit reduction). And some Democratic members of the committee, including Rep. Joe Courtney of Connecticut, said they want to see loan rates extended at the current 3.4 percent level because Congress doesn't have enough time to work out a long-term solution before rates double on July 1. Some Senate Democrats, including Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada, the Majority Leader, also back a short-term extension of the current rate, to give lawmakers enough time to negotiate a long-term fix. The whole dynamic put Duncan in an awkward position. He walked a fine line in his comments—he didn't throw cold water on the Republican proposal, but he didn't give it a huge thumbs up either. Instead, he said he's not in favor of any proposal that would make college more expensive for students. And he's interested in a "long-term fix" on student loans and wants to work with Congress in the next month and a half to make that happen. (That runs counter to what some Senate Democrats are pushing.) Waivers, Pre-K, Common Core The administration's plan to offer states flexibility from the mandates of the No Child Left Behind Act, which are in place in 37 states and the District of Columbia, took some bipartisan heat. Kline said he has made his concerns about the process "abundantly clear" and added that he doesn't think the law should be renewed by "executive fiat." Miller, who is typically an administration ally on K-12 issues, was even more fiery. He is really worried that the administration's waivers shortchange students in particular subgroups (such as English-language learners) and allow states to water down requirements (for instance, by giving credit for GEDs). He's already let the administration know about these concerns, and today he said he wants the education secretary to keep them in mind when deciding whether to renew waivers. "I urge you to hold a high bar for everyone and insist on changes where necessary," Miller said. "You must be the conscience of the nation, resisting the temptation to focus on what's good for adults rather than what's good for students." (Interesting to note: No one mentioned district waivers.) Duncan also made a sales pitch for the administration's plan to significantly expand early-childhood education programs. The proposal seemed to have a lot of fans on the Democratic side of the aisle, including Miller. But Kline said he'd much rather see new money poured into sp

What if I decided not to be plugged in for an extended period of time? What if I just lived in the present moment, looked at the world through my own two eyes instead of my iPhone screen while I snapped a picture that I would soon put a filter on with the hashtag “#instawow”?

Here’s a video from “Today” about how a teacher saved some children when the massive tornado struck Moore, Okla., and the transcript: Reporter: You know, there have been some amazing stories of survival that are starting to emerge from the rubble … Continue reading →

President John Jackson of the Schott Foundation, in his Moving from Standards to Support, explains how school “reform” went wrong and how we should change course. Nearly a generation ago, sincere non-educators, influenced by the corporate worldview, mandated standards-driven school reform driven by “outputs.”  Jackson says that we must reject their failed focus on flawed metrics (outputs) and concentrate on a tough-minded system of supports (formerly known as inputs.) Standards and standardized test-driven “reform” failed because it ignored the root cause of the achievement gap – poverty. As Jackson explains, “Standards-based reform creates an inherent system of winners and losers by raising the bar and assessing who makes the cut.” Because of its focus on tests for punishment, standards for children who are academically drowning have moved the shoreline further away in order to teach them how to swim. It is time to hold “reformers” accountable for their educational outputs i.e. their results in terms of student performance.  Under any objective reckoning, test-driven accountability backfired. It is time to invest in “supports-based reforms.”  We must strategically align: High-quality early education for all students; mandatory kindergarten with assurances that all students are achieving at grade level by 3rd grade; recruitment and retention of high-quality teachers, along with supplying the training and resources those teachers need to provide more learning time and deeper learning approaches; access to student-centered learning and personalized academic, social, and health plans to keep all students on a college path; and equitable resources and policies so that all students remain in engaging, high-quality educational settings. Jackson nails the big picture. Corporate “reformers” defined teachers who supposedly used poverty as an “Excuse” as the enemy.  Their failed answer was replacing us with educators with the willpower to do “Whatever It Takes!” Accountability-driven “reformers” often say that they adopt a hedge fund manager’s approach.  They invest in a policy, but if it doesn’t work, they can always pull the plug. In a rational market-driven world, advocates of test-driven reform would have already seen the obvious – metrics for “outputs” are irremediably primitive and they thus encourage a range of self-defeating behaviors. So, one would think that it would be easy to say that the investment in “outputs” did not work, and it is time to build on what has been learned in the last generation and invest in a smarter system of supports. You say "outputs," and we say "inputs;" can't we just say "support" and call the whole thing off?-JT(drjohnthompson) Image via.

Federal student loans can be a great way to help pay for college or career school.  While you shouldn’t be afraid to take out federal student loans, you should be smart about it. Before you take out a loan, it’s important to understand that a loan is a legal obligation that you will be responsible for repaying with interest. Here are some tips to help you become a responsible borrower. Keep track of how much you’re borrowing. Think about how the amount of your loans will affect your future finances, and how much you can afford to repay. Your student loan payments should be only a small percentage of your salary after you graduate, so it’s important not to borrow more than you need. To view all of your federal student loan information in one place, go to nslds.ed.gov, select Financial Aid Review, and log in. Research starting salaries in your field. Ask your school for starting salaries of recent graduates in your field of study to get an idea of how much you are likely to earn after you graduate. You can use the U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Outlook Handbook to estimate salaries for different careers or use a career search tool to research careers and view the average annual salary for each career. Understand the terms of your loan and keep copies of your loan documents. When you sign your promissory note, you are agreeing to repay the loan according to the terms of the note even if you don’t complete your education, can’t get a job after you complete the program, or you didn’t like the education you received. Make payments on time. You are required to pay the full amount required by your repayment plan, as partial payments do not fulfill your obligation to repay your student loan on time.  Find out more about student loan repayment, including when repayment starts, how to make your payment, repayment plan options, and more! Keep in touch with your loan servicer. Notify your loan servicer when you graduate; withdraw from school; drop below half-time status; transfer to another school; or change your name, address, or Social Security number. You also should contact your servicer if you’re having trouble making your scheduled loan payments. Your servicer has several options available to help you keep your loan in good standing. Remember, federal student loans are an investment in your future so invest wisely. Tara Young is a communication analyst at the Department of Education’s office of Federal Student Aid

Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 DefSemiHidden="true" DefQFormat="false" DefPriority="99" LatentStyleCount="267"> UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Normal"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="heading 1"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Title"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtitle"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Strong"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Emphasis"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Table Grid"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="No Spacing"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 1"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 1"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 1"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="List Paragraph"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Quote"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Quote"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 1"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 1"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 1"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 1"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 1"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 2"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 2"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 2"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 2"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 2"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 2"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 2"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 3"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 3"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 3"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 3"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Gri

An unusual organization of policy leaders has joined the chorus for higher education reform. Chief state budget officers rarely speak collectively or publicly about higher education—instead focusing on state revenue issues, adjusting budgets in light of revenue surpluses (a rare event of late) or shortfalls, and enacting a budget. But in a recent report, these state officials spoke out on higher education. In it, they explore the realities of increased enrollment demands, limited state funding, slower growth in tuition, concerns about institutional spending patterns, performance-based funding, and a changed federal-state partnership. These realities led the state budget heads to a set of recommendations that are not unexpected. They include funding performance, restricting tuition increases, expanding access, improving information about higher education spending, and increasing cost-efficiency. In other words, the call for reform on higher education is now squarely on the minds of state fiscal officers. I think that on the whole, these leaders are on the right track. Limited resources are a reality for the foreseeable future. States should take a lead role in establishing tuition and adopting performance funding, but there is far more that they could do. States could: Shift public support to institutions that enroll most of our students. Or, how about funding students first? Approve budgets for public institutions that also include maintenance of the physical and technological infrastructure. Shift merit-based financial aid to programs that address financial need or combine financial need with merit. These are only a few of the actions that state governments might take to minimize the damage to students and institutions. But fundamentally the states that fund our public institutions must establish a framework within which this process works. Given the public benefits of higher education, there should be a public compact, involving states, institutions, students, and families. A more balanced approach on the responsibilities of each party to reform is important. The budget officers have taken this important first step, but political leaders will ultimately have to lead the charge in order for the country to increase its educational capital. Photo Credit: WatchDog Wire