I spent the President’s Day weekend
in San Antonio, at a conference on the First Year Experience – largely for
four-year colleges developing freshman seminar-type programs.
The keynote speaker was Dewayne
Matthews, Lumina Foundation for Education’s VP for Policy and Strategy.
After hearing him speak, I think I
have a better understanding of what Lumina’s agenda is, at least as stated.
Matthews showed graphs demonstrating
that the US has fallen behind other wealthy industrialized nations in college
attainment – that after World War II, we ramped college degree attainment –
including AA -- up to 40% of Americans, and then after the late 1970s,
“something” happened that led us to stop there.
He also showed graphs that measured
unemployment and income level against level of education, and if the numbers
are correct, the data was stark. For those of us with graduate degrees,
unemployment is at 4%. For those with undergraduate degrees, it’s a bit higher
– and of course, it’s higher still for those with high school diplomas, and
highest for those without high school diplomas. Matthews branded these groups
(as I recall) “the working poor”. A conclusion which was jarring, but
reasonable enough.
Lumina’s mission, as stated in the
presentation, is to increase college degree attainment to 60%. He asserted that
30 million Americans – something like 22% of adults – had gone to some
college, but not graduated with a degree.
The argument is basically that these
workers, who he said often deeply regretted not having finished college, would
have been much better off economically, had they gotten at least an Associate’s
degree.
This is where I thought he got into
our terrain in the Community Colleges.
Lumina’s stated goal, then, is to
increase attainment by moving as many of that 22% as possible – represented by
a large slice of pie at the bottom of a pie chart – out of that “some college”
category and into degreed categories.
We saw some figures that showed that
the students would have been financially better off taking out loans and
staying in college through degree attainment, rather than dragging their
educations out over many years while also working. Though, as I recall, those
figures were based on pre-recession data that went up only to 2008.
Matthews also spoke to Lumina’s
support of common statewide core standards and aligning high school with
college – and these seem to be the policy agendae that are manifesting in the
SSTF recommendations. The goal being this target of 60% attainment by 2025 – as
you can see here:
http://www.luminafoundation.org/newsroom/newsletter/archives/2009-11.html
My assessment is that these are
worthy goals, and largely in line with the Obama Administration’s stated goals
of increasing college education levels in this country to prepare our workforce
to compete in the global marketplace. As stated, they are intended to improve
occupation and wage outcomes for individuals.
That said, Lumina – at least as
presented here – seems to have a big blind spot when it comes to the students
that we serve in California Community Colleges, who often have little choice
but to work while going to school – or incur enormous debt as heads of
household (for example), spending what Lumina suggests be a student-loan-based
income on food and rent for their families, rather than only on tuition and
books. And coming out into an economy in which it does indeed remain difficult,
even for the educated (though quite a bit less difficult than for those without
degrees, is Matthews’ point), to find work that will pay at a level at which
tens of thousands of dollars of debt might be worked off.
I spoke with a colleague from
Minott, North Dakota – a small city currently in the heady rush of a shale oil
boom – who agreed. So this isn’t just an urban-Californian concern.
That Lumina is a provider of student
loans is also troubling. Will that additional 22% of Americans come out of
college owing Lumina Foundation a monthly check for the rest of their working
lives? And is that the point? I can’t answer that – but the potential for
conflict of interest here is, at least, troubling.
I met Matthews later, getting out of
an elevator, and told him that at my community college in California,
colleagues were quite wary of Lumina and initiatives that were being forced on
us during a budget crisis. I told him that their program as stated -- the model
that Lumina’s policies seem to add up to, getting college students out of the
work force and into loans to get them to degrees faster – didn’t seem to
account for the reality of many community college students, many of whom are
supporting families. That it would not work for many of our students – and that
that was OK.
He said that they hadn’t articulated
their goals well for community colleges. I’m not sure if he meant that they had
not explained them well enough, or that the policies had not been developed
well enough (the other meaning of articulation in this context) to account for
the realities of community college students’ needs. If it’s the latter, then I
wonder why the recommendations are being put in place in our system. I’d guess
he meant the former. In which case, I suppose, I am doing his job for
him.
In any case, my overall assessment
is that the stated goal of 60% attainment is a worthy goal, and one that our
faculty should, in principle, support – and, of course, student by student, we
do support this goal. That’s why we do what we do.
I’m not sure pushing students out of
jobs and into loans is realistic for many of our students. Though, I have to
say, affectively speaking, I do encourage my students who are missing class in
order to work shifts at low-paying jobs, to lose the jobs if at all possible
and focus on school -- on degree attainment. So I am predisposed to accept
Lumina’s research results and conclusions.
Again, I am wary of Lumina’s
intentions. That if they are in the loan business, 30 million Americans sending
them monthly checks is quite a large sum of money – and that this is quite
likely, at least, potentially biasing in terms of their public policy agenda.
Does Lumina's loan business exist to further its altruistic goal? Or is it
vice-versa? Or, if the outcomes are positive, might this be one of those cases
in which it doesn't matter?
I’m less wary of Lumina’s working
with the Gates Foundation, which I think is a fairly altruistic organization.
And I think Gates’ support of Lumina’s program speaks to its merit. Gates wants
more American workers to be highly trained for good-paying, high tech jobs. I
think that, too, is a worthy goal, and one we, as a faculty, should, would, and
do support.
Then, I don’t think that all of
those 22% of Americans with “some college” were necessarily on a college degree
track – and I don’t think that we should eliminate educational opportunities
that the community colleges provide for people who are not working to attain
degrees. We also have a community mission to fulfill.
In such lean times, we do have
difficult choices to make.
Rich Simon
English
