In an age rich in ironies, there is perhaps no twist more ironic than the billion- dollar olive branch the Bush Administration is extending to the institution that is the biggest hotbed of disdain for the Republican president—the higher education establishment. Not that it is likely to result in fewer burnings in effigy of President George W. Bush and his loyal subordinates, though.
One of our readers, who has the background to make such an evaluation, offered his assessment of this bling bling theory of educational reform, or the notion that increased government subsidies of students and schools will lead to educational excellence. “As a college teacher for 42 years, here are a few more thoughts,” he writes:
• “First, it is my belief that federal monies give colleges a chance to raise their tuitions, thus distorting the marketplace and defeating the loans’ very purpose.
• “Second, most money seems to end up in administrative salaries and services. (I understand this happens in the public school system also. I think it’s called the first pig in the trough phenomenon.)
• “Third, Higher education costs vary greatly. So students can go to cheaper colleges.
• “Fourth, I am convinced that working while going to school (as many of our students do) gives people a greater appreciation and insight into their education. (Of course, this is not particularly appreciated by many college professors, since non-traditional students are difficult to Pied-Piperize.)”
The plan that U. S. Secretary of Education Margaret Spelling’s commission on higher education has concocted to transform the Ivory Tower looks a lot like No Child Left Behind—three parts funding, one part accountability. Nonetheless, as with NCLB and primary grades, the portion of the scheme that has the faculty lounge most apprehensive is the transparency section.
“No current ranking system of colleges and universities directly measures the most critical point—student performance and learning,” the secretary pointed out when she unveiled the Department of Education’s higher education plan at the National Press Club. “You’d never buy a house without an inspection, take a vacation without researching your destination, or these days, buy groceries without reading the nutritional label.”
“And in almost every area of our government we expect transparency and accountability: from prescription drug programs to housing to K-12 education.”
“If we’re that particular in those areas, shouldn’t we do the same with higher education?” Spellings asks. “Something so critical to our future success and quality of life?”
“We absolutely should!” Thus, Spellings promises, “ACTION FOUR under my plan will provide matching funds to colleges, universities, and states that collect and publicly report student learning outcomes.”
“Right now, accreditation is the system we use to put a stamp of approval on higher education quality,” she explained. “It’s largely focused on inputs, more on how many books are in a college library, than whether students can actually understand them.”
“Institutions are asked ‘Are you measuring student learning?’ And they check yes or no.”
“That must change,” Spellings insists. “Whether students are learning is not a yes or no question.” Another irony: NCLB, the legislation that the Spellings’ plan closely resembles, may have already had a salutary effect on institutions of higher learning, even though the earlier act is designed primarily to reform elementary education.
“Still, the No Child Left Behind Act has changed education schools in substantial ways,” Samantha Henig writes in the October 6th issue of the Chronicle of Higher Education. “Officials of teacher-preparation programs have had to rethink and sometimes restructure their general curricula.”
“Many institutions now require that students majoring in education have a dual major or minor in a liberal-arts subject,” Henig explains. “That sets up graduates to meet the federal guidelines, which specify that anyone who teaches a ‘core academic subject,’ like English or biology, must demonstrate knowledge of that field.”
Imagine. But wait, it gets better. “Teachers say the new programs that have sprouted at colleges in the wake of No Child Left Behind have the striking advantage of being immediately applicable in their classrooms,” Henig informs us. “Instead of having to take traditional college-level courses to meet federal guidelines, participating teachers can brush up on content that more closely matches what they are actually teaching.”
Malcolm A. Kline is the executive director of Accuracy in Academia.
