It's never too early to begin recruiting.

Throughout high school I never considered going to college, I was content with graduating from the 12^th grade—that was realistic. Perhaps this way of thinking was a result of never learning about it. Teachers, administrators or counselors never mentioned college to me in high school, much less in elementary school.

A recent article highlights the recruitment efforts of South Texas College, a community college reaching out to “Hispanic” students as early as kindergarten. The institution would like students to begin thinking about a post-secondary education at an early age, and is working with elementary schools to create a college-going culture. South Texas is helping youth from underrepresented communities gain the confidence needed to prepare for a college education.

The educational gap in the United States is illustrated in the chart below. Out of 100...

The recruitment strategy of South Texas is especially aimed at Latino males, as they have the lowest number in college enrollment across the state. According to the article, only 3.7% of Latino males in Texas were enrolled in college in 2010. The majority of Latino students do not graduate from high school, an issue consistent throughout the country. A report recently published by the CollegeBoard, found the high school dropout rate for 16-24-year old Latino males was 22%, the highest among all major racial and ethnic groups. Additionally, Latino males were least likely to graduate from college.

Despite a recent 24% increase in Latino college enrollment (which remains disproportionate compared to the overall increase in population), the persistent rate remains low for this group. It is imperative for institutions of higher education to develop strategies to better support this growing population.

I was pleased to learn about the recruitment initiatives at South Texas College. Certainly, there are various factors that prevent students from having access to higher education. However, I do believe the lack of information regarding college is one of the greatest factors that cause high school dropout rates to remain high. Creating a college-going culture at an early age will certainly help increase high school persistence, as well as college enrollment.

Higher Education Access, Capacity, and Perceived Limitations for Creating Awareness

President Obama was quoted in USA Today as urging students to pursue higher education. I believe he deserves accolades for the encouragement of student and continued support of higher education. However, I am a bit perplexed by the statement to .....lean on parents, teachers and other adults in the context of financial support. I understand that academic support and encouragement can come from this group of individuals; however, financial resources are limited regardless of how much you a student would like to “lean” on the individuals. I realize this may be only an excerpt of his statement, but it caused a reaction from me because I am one of those parents incurring student loan debt for both myself and my daughter, and in three years I will have one other child in college. Although I have saved some money for college tuition the amount seems dismal compared to the percentage of increase in higher education tuition in the past several years.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2011/09/obama-urges-students-to-pursue-higher-education/1

The subject caused me to delve deeper to discover the” National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education which promotes public policies that enhance Americans' opportunities to pursue and achieve high-quality education and training beyond high school. As an independent, nonprofit, nonpartisan organization, the National Center prepares action-oriented analyses of pressing policy issues facing the states and the nation regarding opportunity and achievement in higher education-including two- and four-year, public and private, for-profit and nonprofit institutions.” http://www.highereducation.org/

This organization has created a report "Challenging the State to "Preserve College Access and Affordability", but when read closely the organization is encouraging limiting access, capacity, closing graduate programs, stream lining administrative functions, increasing faculty load, and ensuring that tuition is not increased, and that the state financial deficits are covered equally among state entities and not penalizing to higher education alone. Although dwindling state funds is addressed anectodally, the overall tone of the report seems to imply that higher education (the academy) is the problem and the solution.

http://www.highereducation.org/crosstalk/ct0309/Challenge_to_the_states.pdf

The two articles combined made me realized that as higher education professionals we have an obligation to address funding, access, and completion issues by constantly communicate the current state of the academy because of funding. In the absences of proactive communication with both the good news and the bad, the academy will continue to experience more unfunded mandates, regulation and reporting requirements. However, I know that I have personally become less involved in the past several years because of my perception that limitations have been put on State of Colorado Employees in the political process. Therefore, I reviewed the Federal Hatch Act and the Fair Campaign Practices Act (FCPA), as well as the Colorado Division of Human Resources in the Department of Personnel & Administration on Employee (DPA) Participation in Political Activities. After reviewing the DPA advisement more closely, I feel like I am limited. In addition, every year a separate email comes from the Colorado Community College System (CCCS) President to all CCCS employees with reminders about the limitations of political involvement of state employees. I will research any reported correlation further and encourage others to do so also.

http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite?blobcol=urldata&blobheader=application%2Fpdf&blobkey=id&blobtable=MungoBlobs&blobwhere=1234499450854&ssbinary=true

Sharing my thought process may have resulted in three blogs in one. Nonetheless, access to higher education is a complicated subject and as Higher Education Professionals we have the obligation to promote our message, but I am not sure if we are doing so with debilitating perceived limitations (in Colorado).

Access v. Success

The Community College has long been hailed as venue for opportunity. The various missions of the community college (transfer preparation, remedial education, community education, and community service) have developed through a need to service the increasing numbers of baby-boomers, who during the 70’s and 80’s contributed to an increased demand for higher education. It quickly became apparent that many aspiring students lacked the skills necessary to find success in college. The Community College stepped up to fill this role (J.B. Hirt, Where you Work Matters: Student Affairs Adminstration at Different Types of Institutions, 136-8).

The community college commitment to provide remedial course offerings and community service has been hindered because of decreasing higher education funding. The lack of funding provides an environment where access is paramount above success. With declining federal funding and an increased reliance on tuition, it becomes easy for administrators to consider an increase in the bottom line as success. Put simply, Community Colleges have the resources to bring students in, but do not have the time or money to make sure they succeed. Through assessment testing we determine whether or not students have the skills to succeed in college. I wonder if it would be beneficial to assess for college readiness in other terms; i.e. time management, organization, study skills, notetaking, etc? A local community college has reported that for students who begin in the lowest level of developmental education, literally 0% go on to college level. I worry that this is becoming okay with us, because it just means that they’ll try again, and pay to do it. I wonder if our mission to remediate is being clouded by the increase of revenue that results by students retaking courses.

I feel as if Community Colleges often are more worried about the perception of the services that we provide rather than the effectiveness of these services. It seems that if a Community College can say we have a Veteran’s center or we have First Generation support programs, for example, that this is enough. No matter that these areas often serve a very low percentage of the student population. This amounts to what I consider bait and switch. We like to contend that this is an environment of opportunity and that we are available to assist students every step of the way. To be fair, we are available, if you as a student are savvy enough to seek out the resources. The fact of the matter is that student’s don’t know what they don’t know and often they need assistance and motivation to persist to graduation. Intensive advising support programs could help fill this need.

I understand that the current decrease of education funding makes it very difficult to move from a reliance on access (tuition dollars) to a dependence on completion. A recent article sheds light on this issue as it relates to the college completion agenda and the call to improve student completion rates by 50 percent over the next decade. With an increased demand for accountability, community colleges may no longer have the choice to focus on the bottom line and forego support services that we know promote success. According to the article, “President Obama, foundation leaders, and the heads of advocacy groups all agree that community colleges need to focus on more than access and drastically improve their generally low completion rates.” The article goes on “these leaders know, whether by research or common sense, just what to do – such as providing better academic advising, outreach to struggling students, and financial aid to encourage full-time enrollment…” The problem is that in our current environment college administrators are making tough budgetary decisions that often result in a decrease in the types of services that we know promote success. Ron Wright of Delgado Community College in New Orleans admits, “we know full well that we need to be ‘high-touch’ with students and have counselors and advisers for them to talk to in order to give them guidance and direction, especially because most of our students don’t have family members who’ve been to college.” He continues, “but, despite this, we have to cut back on guidance and first-year experience programs and the like. We’ve had to let a number of people who were on contract for dedicated advising to students go.”

Educators know what their students need, but are forced to cut the very services that they know promote success. Considering the call to action to increase completion rates, educators are stuck between a rock and a hard place. Administrators know the services needed to promote student completion, but lack the funding to provide them. It is time for student affairs administrators, especially in the community college, due to its mission of community service and remediation, to rethink strategies for revenue building. It seems that the public is looking for more than access, they are looking for success. It is the responsibility of administrators to determine how to accomplish this, despite the budgetary constraints.

Bridging the Gap in Colorado

There is no shortage of blame in this country in regard to the educational system. Teachers are getting blamed for not getting the job done; some parents are blamed for being too involved and not allowing teachers to do their jobs; other parents are blamed for not being involved enough and letting the schools raise their children; colleges are blamed for being too expensive and inaccessible; and it goes on and on. I would like to shed light on the disconnect between the K-12 system and higher education, and bring to your attend one way in which Colorado is attempting to address the issues. It is not my intent to "blame" either side, as I believe both K-12 and higher education have fallen victim to a variety of societal ills, some of which we will be addressing in class.

It is unfortunate that these two educational entities are often in competition with one another for state funding. of course, when each is in the habit of having to justify every decision made to the public in order to receive funding it becomes all too easy to point fingers for what it not going right, rather than accepting responsibility and holding themselves accountable. We hear and read about some alarming statistics ...he number of students from every ethnicity who are graduating from high school; how underprepared high school graduates are for college-level coursework; and the trends of how various students are scoring on standardized tests.

Dating back to 1983, the state of Colorado has been allowing high school students to complete college work, operating under a PSEO (Post Secondary Education Options) agreement. The PSEO allows 11th and 12th graders to either concurrently enroll in college courses or to take a dual enrollment course. In my time working with incoming college freshmen and their parents, it was evident to me, the kind of student who would take advantage of these options to start earning college credit early. It tended to be the students who wold appear to be high-achievers, often coming from more affluent school districts. they were the students who had done well on their ACT exams and carried decent grade point averages. They had parents who were involved in their education, but more than anything they were students who had high school counselors involved with their education. in other words, they were already on someones educational radar and at some point, not only were they introduced to the program, but someone from their high school administration signed off on their participation in a PSEO.

How does one get on the education radar of the school administration? Well, they must of been identified as being "college bound" at some point in their education. These are the same students who have been encouraged to take Advanced Placement courses, and they have been set up from very early on in high school to complete their HEAR (Higher Education Admissions Requirements). These students most likely entered high school knowing that college wasin their future.

I attended a workshop last week, where one of the sessions was about state policy regarding concurrent education and the gap that the Colorado Department of Education is attempting to bridge. Housebill 1319 and Statebill 285, the "Concurrent Enrollment Program Acts" will redefine the rules regarding PSEO's and broaden access to the programs. One is the ASCENT program which allows high schoolers the option to stay in high school for an additional year (making high school 5 years long) and take college courses in that 5th year. The second program, concurrent education, allows a school district to work out an agreement with a neighboring community college or 4-yr institution, where high school students would be permitted to take identified college courses for both college and high school credit.

The goal of the policies is to improve coordination by creating a coordinating board through College In Colorado. Before, the PSEO’s were really only for college bound high school students, under the new policy, students could also take classes that would apply to career and technical trades, broadening access to the type of student who will take advantage of the program.

Who funds this? It is my understanding that the school district will fund both of these programs. I believe each district can establish the criteria in which they will pay the bill, however. For example, one district may say that a student has to pay the tuition bill up front, then achieve a certain grade and be reimbursed from the district, while another districts may pay the institution of higher education upfront as a third party and never have an awareness of the grade a student receives.

What I like most about this evolving policy, is that students are now, under the new policy, permitted to take remedial coursework…allowing them to catch up and putting themselves in a better place to be successful on a college campus…on the school districts dime. At the beginning of this blog, I said I would not place blame. But I do beleive a district should be at least partially responsible for remediating students.

I think the Department of Education just may have gotten this one right! I am cautiously excited to see how this policy will play out in the coming years. I do continue to worry that not all students will learn of their options in enough time to take advantage of them, however. The program rolls out for Fall 2012, stay tuned!

When Personal and Professional Identities Compete by Yolanda Espinoza

The subject of illegal immigrants being extended colleges benefits such as in-state tuition is continuously distressing to me because the subject affects both my personal and professional identities. My ancestors are from Mexico and my mother’s first language is Spanish and she worked in the fields as a young girl. She listens to Spanish music, watches Spanish television, and has always made sure her children were involved in the community with recent immigrants. So, I know about immigrants, working in the fields (my two day punishment for ditching school), and the struggles of persons who speak Spanish and are trying to acquire a second language and acclimate to a new country. I also know individuals in our Northern Colorado communities who are illegal, but have been in the U.S. since being an infant or young child. So, I have firsthand knowledge of some of the struggles and barriers and I want to help. Frankly, I believe everyone who can benefit from an education should be provided one. I also agree with the article below in that it is economically self defeating if we do not educate illegal immigrants.
http://www.ajc.com/opinion/pro-con-should-states-536097.html

In my professional career I am the Chief Tuition Classification Officer, I am the Primary Designated School Official for Homeland Security, and I am responsible for compliance with HB 1023, Verification of Lawful Presence in the U.S. to name a few areas that overlap with the immigration issue. I know that U.S. citizens are denied in-state tuition and I know that Homeland Security and U.S. Immigration and Naturalization expect individuals to return to their home country which is also illustrated in this article by the opposing parties on the subject of illegal immigration and in-state benefits.

I am constantly perplexed because my professional and personal roles are conflicting in many cases. Nonetheless, I like being employed so I follow the rules and regulations I have been entrusted with constantly and consistently, but it does not always feel like the right thing to do. I would prefer that the U.S. Government address our immigration dilemma and provide amnesty for those here and subsequently enforce immigration laws.

What is your opinion?

Pro & Con: Should states extend college benefits to illegal immigrants?
By Azadeh N. Shahshahani
Jessica Colotl, the 21-year-old exemplary Kennesaw State college student who fell victim to the Cobb sheriff’s abuse of the 287(g) power, which delegates some federal immigration enforcement authority to certain state and local agencies, is out on bond and hopes to restart her education soon.
The Cobb County Sheriff’s Office’s diversion of precious resources meant for securing public safety is case in point for why the unaccountable enforcement of immigration laws by local police in Cobb County and elsewhere in Georgia needs to end immediately.
As if this case was not proof enough about the perils of local enforcement of immigration laws, some are now calling for universities to also enter the dangerous terrain of acting as immigration police.
Undocumented college students are by and large talented high achievers who arrived in the U.S. as children because of the choices their parents made. They grew up in this country and persevered against the odds to graduate from high school and secure admission to Georgia colleges.

Read on for pros and cons………………………..
http://www.ajc.com/opinion/pro-con-should-states-536097.html

18 hours? "Really?" "Really."

Towards the end of my work week, I enjoyed a vibrant discussion with one of my more mature non-trads about social development. The student had raised a question about “the system” in that down-beat, def-jam poetry kind of way that is popular in the coffee house. To leverage his comments to revitalize the in-class discussion on self and otherness (an interesting- if somewhat abstract- segue from the course objective “drawing on context to create meaning [in reading]”) I emphasized - tying in one or two injects from other students then- that our personal context is heavily impacted by the decisions we have had to make in the past, the problems we have had to solve and how we’ve chosen to solve them. Towards the end of the discussion I commented on the disconnect between policy makers (specifically in Higher Ed as that was the system to which the student’s inquiry was targetted) and the reality of their policies. This same engaged student took this last as almost an epiphany of sorts, “Really?” He asked with a tone of sincere disbelief. “Really,” I replied.

Beau Lotto, in his presentation to the TED conference in 2009 which explored our experience of color makes the comment, “context is everything (Lotto, 2009).” This is an assumption which I have been, recently (and largely because of the subject matter I am currently working through with my students), debating in myself. To say, “Context is everything,” seems, to me, to open the door to excusing unethical behavior. But even ethics, some might argue, emerge from context. Or do they?

If we are to universally apply the assumption, “context is everything,” we must concede, then, that policy arises out of context – be that government policy or the policy of institutions of higher learning. Procedure, then, (via Aristotelian delineation) emerges, in-turn, from the context created by policy. (I’ve yet to hear of a successful consultant who suggested a client allow procedure to dictate policy – in fact – the art and science of change management progresses to implementation in exactly the reverse manner.)

This last week we re-framed higher education as being a mature industry whereas until now it has been a growth industry. Certainly, the ramifications of casting higher ed in such a context are manifold! Market forces often work against mature industries. The Market favors “the new.” Beyond “mature industry” there is a fifth and final stage of organizational development which we did not discuss: dead. If we are, in fact, in a mature industry, then our decisions are now being guided by the doom which hangs over our head – we will, inevitably, die. Every decision we make is, when cast into this context, directed at prolonging the life of our institutions and industry – this is higher ed on life-support.

The problem which is becoming systematic is that in our over-reliance in the social sciences on context as the defining agent of our actions we all too easily establish a universal scapegoat for unethical behavior – “context” becomes our new absolution. We can be made to understand that, by not even cautioning a single working-mom against taking an 18 hour course load her first semester in college (this really happened to one of my students, thank God she got me as her professor and not some of my more inflexible colleagues) that we bear no guilt in this unethical inaction, we were simply being the victim of our “context” – it was “the system” that made me do it!

I am not, here seeking to usurp the importance of understanding context. But through immersion, B. D. Tatum would tell us, certain aspects of context become irrelevant - that is - the salience of identity is not fixed (Tatum, 1997). I would argue that this is because, once we strip away the veneer of context (this occurred to me through the kind of death of identity that can only come from complete cultural uprooting and isolation which was ascetic in many respects) we find a deeper identity underlying the social construct we call “self.” Once we’ve accessed this level, "commonality" – and the universal a priori assumptions of humanity – become our new baseline for personally interpreting social norms and mores. (Simply put, the Golden Rule suddenly comes back into fashion.)

Regardless of policy, regardless of market forces or what some will point to as the death-knell of higher ed (I do not choose to drink this doomsayer kool-aid), there is still a critical choice which is left to us when we determine policy and make administrative decisions. “What will be the outcome in reality of each of the available options from which I must decide?” Student affairs is about understanding that administrative decisions and practices which will impact the life-long course of our students’ lives. I, for one, don’t care what your context is – if you make a decision (doing nothing is also an active decision) which sets a student up to fail then you are culpable for the ruin which will befall them. We may be a mature industry, but we cannot allow ourselves to emulate the less scrupulous minority of organizations in industry which have sought to cut corners and conduct their dealings in an underhanded manner (by the way, in case you missed my rhetoric, this is not the majority practice of businesses regardless of their size – don’t believe the propaganda of “the anti-system”). We cannot allow ourselves to become the metaphoric ENRON. If we make policy based on the “context” of regulation (which we are already seeing an increase of in our field) and on our resource stream, without the inclusion of student outcomes then we are simply hastening the judgment and recompense which we, as a ‘mature industry’ have upon us. I am not saying that this is the norm in our segment of industry nor even in our industry as a whole. I believe in respecting those in power for the lessons they have learned through experience which oft out-spans our entire lifetime as individuals. What I am saying is that we are the next generation and without a measure of scrupulous disregard for context in our day-to-day dealings (we are capable of abstraction in thought and thereby of transcending context) we could, for lack of diligence, set policy which enables (if not encourages) the kind of scandals and deception in practice which we have seen recently in the industry. We have a long and cherished history of response to student needs and in order to uphold it we must be able to synthesize the full impact of our decisions on a “system” which is infinitely more complex than it was a couple centuries ago. But perhaps, rather than transcending context this is merely expanding it?














Tatum, B. D., "Why are all the black kids sitting together in the cafeteria," Basic Books, 1997

The Million Graduates

            McKinsey Quarterly thinks that the United States needs more graduates, one million graduates each year by 2020 for better economy. That means increasing the total graduates by 40%.  To accomplish this goal, for the next ten years, all universities should increase the number of its graduates by 3.5%. However, there are two reasons make it hard mission, First of all, this idea may coast more than $52 billion a year. States that have financial problems have lowered spending on higher education. Secondly, universities need to enroll more than 3.5% because only 40% of all students graduate every year.

            To achieve the goal with spending less, colleges should attract more students and keep a tight lid on coasts without lowering the education qualities or granting access to the best students. Colleges can be productive by raising graduation rates as controlling costs.

            McKinsey examined the education and management practices of eight collages that its productive levels up to 60% more than the average, measured by the coast per degree, to understand what makes them more productive. The colleges are a mix of private and public institutions. Also, they give degrees after two or four years.

            The eight colleges have five strategies help to achieve high productivity: three strategies that keep costs under control and two that increase the number of students completing their degrees.

1.      Helping students to graduate.

2.      Reducing unproductive credits.

3.      Redesigning instruction.

4.      Improving efficiency in core support and services. 
5.      Running noncore services and other operations efficiently and selectively.

First strategy is helping students to graduate. The eight institutions build up their systems to help as many students as possible achieve degrees. IndianaWesleyan University’s College of Adult and professional studies (IWU-CAPS) , achieve a six-years graduation rate of 65%  —19 percentage points above its peer average— by encouraging students support each other. Similarly, In Florida, Valencia communitycollege’s three-year graduation rate is 35% -- 15 % points above that of peer institutions-- because the collage provides support and tools for planning the students’ path to graduation and redesigned services to improve the quality.

      The second strategy is reducing the unnecessary credits. There is 10% of all credits are excess of the number of required to graduate. Even though these credits are good for students, they add cost to a degree. For example, Southern New Hampshire University allows students to graduate with no more than 150 credits.

 

      Third one is about how using new technology can lower the coasts and raise the qualities. In Arizona, Rio Salado college substitutes part-time for full-time faculty. Also, some institutions developed new material called “master courses” instead of asking professors to create their own materials. The technology is not the only way to cut teaching coasts. Brigham Young University- Idaho adds a third (full spring) semester) to the calendar. As a result, the coasts of teaching were cut by 32% per student.

The fourth strategy is how reduce the cost of core support and services. Idaho, Rio Salado, and DeVry University succeeded reducing costs in this area by converting paper-based systems to electronic ones, cross-training to eliminate staff downtime, and using self-service online portals to administer financial aid. Also, in the fifth strategy, these universities reduced the costs by paying closer attention to mandatory operations while improving efficiency across all noncore services.

To get the extra million graduates necessitates lowering the nation’s average cost per degree by 23 percent, and this assumes rising the total tuition revenues in line with student numbers but not rising in tuition fees.

Finally, the impact of the five strategies shows that these strategies play a useful role in achieving the goal. Therefore, institutions can raise their productivities if they apply these five important strategies. Both State and federal governments should add the productivity in their higher education’s plans through the data that is provided via institutions.  

Community Colleges bore the blunt of higher education spending

How many times have you heard politicians, economists, and policy makers speak or write on the importance of community colleges? Now zero in on one or two of these occasions and try to connect the purpose of their overall message while extrapolating the rhetoric, jargon, and feel good stories of community colleges and what do you have? Community colleges for decades have always been used as leverage when disseminating messages of hope. It’s almost like the feel good boot strap story that makes us believe the less-privileged can achieve success in a country that has historically rooted against them by simply pulling up their boot straps and marching through the swaps without the appropriate tools or resources needed to navigate or circumvent challenges they may encounter on their path of integration and success. If community colleges are the United States first line of defense in rebuilding our capitalist driven economy, as many allude to in speeches and publications, why don’t we fund our community colleges like the Department of Defense? In the article College Spending Trends Show Students Bearing a Growing Share of the Costs, the author Goldie Blumenstyk examines the disparities of funding in sectors of higher education highlighting the extreme Mike Tyson punches community colleges receive in terms of funding compared to their higher education counterparts.
Over the last ten years community colleges have served over 1 million additional students than any other sector of higher education, however had the lowest increase in per student spending. Private research institutions of higher education had the largest increase in per student spending despite enrolling the least amount of students. What I find troubling is the gap between the $38 community colleges increase in per student spending compared to the average $1,312 increase in per student spending of public research and master granting institutions of higher education. Community colleges serve the largest number of students in the United States and contributes greatly to the enrollment of both public and private institutions of higher education. In fact, some research suggests community colleges students who enroll in four year degree granting institutions of higher education graduate at a higher rate than those students who start at four year degree granting institutions . If four year institutions benefit and some even profit from students who attended community college shouldn’t these institutions be required to support community colleges financially?
Blumenstyk states, “Disparities between rich and poor institutions in overall spending levels have never been larger, the richer institutions are getting richer and the poorer are getting poorer”. If this is true what will happen when poor community colleges are forced to close their doors? What will come of the students they serve?
Politicians, economists, policy makers, higher education practitioners, students, and other sectors of higher education will ultimately have to work together to respond with the intent to act and influence the disparity of funding in the community college sector of higher education.

Proposition 103

Recently I learned of a grassroots movement, Great Futures Coalition, to pass legislature to address the impact of the Governor’s proposed 2011/2012 budget cuts on education in the state of Colorado. The budget cuts will result in further injury to the severely wounded K-12 and further limit access to the higher education system. Proposition 103 is not a permanent repair to the deep wound, but rather a temporary Band-Aid intended to stem the flow of blood over the next 5 years while a cure is sought. The Great Futures Coalition is made up of concerned educators, parents, and community members whose focus is on attempting to take action to give education a temporary reprieve from the slicing and dicing that will take place if the Governor’s budget is passed. From what I can gather from their messages, the group is composed of folks across political party lines. Maybe I am being naïve, but the group does not seem to be, on the surface at least, to be pushing political agendas beyond an attempt to prevent imminent damage as a result of the upcoming funding cuts.

My short and dirty interpretation of Proposition 103 basically boils down to the restoration of state income, corporate, and sales tax to the levels of 1999. This would mean an increase in corporate income and personal tax from 4.63% to 5% and sales tax from 2.9% to 3% to take effect January 2012 for a fixed period of 5 years. This would result in potentially raising $532 million per year to put towards the prevention of additional funding cuts to preschool through higher education and ideally begin to repair some of the damage inflicted over the last 3 years of education funding cuts.

Unfortunately, the folks who drafted Proposition 103 failed to solicit my input because in essence, I would likely support it. But, alas, I am far too fond of my meager income and am not keen on parting with more of it. If the innovative folks of the Great Future Coalition had consulted me, I would have recommended eliminating the income tax hike and instead increase the sales tax. Then the amount contributed would be based on the dollars spent by citizens…the more one spends, the more one pays. This would make me feel as if I had a choice in the matter and would be more in alignment with ability to pay.

I am also concerned about the accountability measures including how and where the money is ultimately spent. Given the measly amount of dollars that actually ended up in the community college system as a result of the passing of Amendment 50, I fear the money will not be spent as intended.

The cost of higher education beyond the U.S.

Mexico’s National Autonomous University (UNAM) is the largest in Latin America and among the largest in the world. Its enrollment surpasses the 160,000 undergraduate students and 21,000 graduate students. In 1999 the government did try to add a little tuition, but there was a national student strike and the government backed off. Opponents of fee increases invoked the guarantee of free education established in Mexico’s constitution. The UNAM is not only free but has an extraordinary reputation as one of the best public education systems in the world as reported by The Economist. It was ranked by Britain’s Times Higher Education Supplement in the top 200 in the world.

That’s Mexico, a poor country.

In industrialized countries mainly in Europe there is a strong legal tradition of free public higher education. However, in recent years, European countries have been considering reforming higher education with pieces of legislation terminating the policies that exempt college student from paying tuition. In the United Kingdom for instance (where college education was free until the arrival of right-wing, conservative, governments) there is a maximum tuition fee that cannot exceed the equivalent of $4000 a year.

As the Chronicle reports tuition at public universities in Sweden is free, it is also the case in France where all universities are public and none charges tuition fees.

The Economist reports that in Germany in 2005 a constitutional court allowed tuition fees to be introduced. However, several German states are abolishing these provisions and bringing back free public higher education to its citizens. In Austria thousands of students took to the streets in protest of the governmental attempt to introduce tuition fees.

The Chronicle points out that the main source of financing for many European universities continues to be public monies. However, there are an increasing number of institutions that are pursing various sources of revenue driven by neoliberal ideology whereby corporate culture becomes the model to imitate

Student activism has in some cases (Austria, Germany, Mexico) proved to be successful in resisting the privatization and corporatization of higher education. However, there are some instances like Great Britain where decisions of government have silenced the voices of students

Giroux (2002) when writing about the U.S higher education system argues that “neoliberalism is the most dangerous ideology of the current historical moment.” It is the defining political economic paradigm of our time. The corrosive effect of corporate culture jeopardizes the preservation of the profound democratic values under which our public higher education system was founded.

“Higher education and specifically public higher learning institutions should be viewed as a vital resource to the democratic and civic life of the nation against the current onslaught to corporatize higher education.”

Gainful Employment

While many of us working in higher education may not have heard of "gainful employment" prior to the summer of 2010, "gainful employment" is not a new term coined by the current administration. In fact, the Higher Education Act of 1965 first began using the term "gainful employment" when allowing financial aid programs to be extended to for-profit institutions and certificate programs at public institutions. In an effort to further define and measure gainful employment, in the summer of 2010 the Department of Education released an initial proposal of gainful employment regulations, which was followed by a year of great debate amongst leaders of higher education, advocacy groups, and politicians.

The federal government released the final rules of Gainful Employment in June of 2011. According to the federal government, by collecting data from institutions of higher learning gainful employment regulations will be a tool used to measure the "value" of an academic program. While gainful employment regulations are mostly targeted at for-profit colleges and universities, certificate and vocational programs being offered at nonprofit institutions must also comply. Overall, in determining whether or not particular programs are eligible to continue receiving and disbursing federal financial aid to students, gainful employment regulations tie federal student loans to student debt-to-income ratio as well as the loan repayment rates. Institutions of higher learning will be forced to report data to the federal government that evaluates whether or not students are taking out loan debt that can be paid off (in prescribed amount of time set by the gainful employment regulations) once they are finished with their program and earning an income.

The final gainful employment regulations published in July 2011 were considerably edited from the initial proposals. While many feel the final version does not go far enough to protect students from getting into debt they cannot repay, others claim that gainful employment is targeting low income students who would not otherwise be able to attain a degree/certificate. Both arguments have significant support from opposing lawmakers and civil liberty groups. However, those who oppose the new gainful employment regulations have remained fairly quiet since the final rules published were a much softer blow than the original proposal.

While I do agree that gainful employment regulations will target programs sought after by low income and minority students, I would argue that these are specifically the students we should be paying greater attention to in an effort to be sure they can be successful after they leave higher education. Students should be able to select their programs of interest, but it does not mean that institutions should participate in, and in some cases advocate for, students going into large amounts of debt (that they have no chance of being able to successfully pay off) in order to earn a degree or certificate. This especially occurs at for-profit colleges who have had a historically higher default rate than public or nonprofit colleges and universities. Now for-profit colleges/universities will be forced to collect and report data demonstrating that students are borrowing more than they will earn. Perhaps for-profit institutions will reevaluate their tuition prices and set them at more reasonable rates so that students do not have to borrow more than they can repay.

Administrators who work for public and nonprofit institutions who will be effected by gainful employment because they offer certificate or vocational programs, will now be forced to evaluate their programs and ensure they are achieving successby looking closely at their retention and graduation rates, working closer with industry partners to assist graduates with entering the labor market, and determining whether or not their program(s) are still valid and whether or not the college/university should continue to offer them to students. Certificates and vocational programs are created for the purpose of getting graduates into the workforce or giving them the upgraded skills they need to be successful in their current position, which means that students should only be borrowing reasonable amounts of loans in order to quickly earn their certificate or degree.

Overall, I do feel that gainful employment regulations are a step in the right direction. However, as an administrator who has been involved with the implementation of gainful employment reporting, I do see some major gaps with the current data being collected and reported to the feds. As with many regulations that come down from the federal and state government, I think the overall policy making and the practical side of reporting do not always match up. Some of the questions I have regarding how "value" will be measured with the current reporting structure includes:

1) How do we determine whether or not a graduate went into the field of work they studied? If they did not enter that field, is that the responsibility of the college/university?
2) Is the student not repaying their loans because they are not making enough money or because they are not fiscally responsible?
3) Is the student making more money than they would have had they not gained any education and if so, how is that measured?

There are several unanswered questions about the new regulations and the impacts will not be felt at colleges or universities for a few years. However, it is hopeful that these new regulations will help colleges and universities better educate students about debt and determine whether or not programs should be eligible for federal student loans.