Opening the Door to Higher Ed Alternatives

To remain competitive in a global economy, U.S. postsecondary institutions must graduate a higher percentage of their students. Government and organizations at the federal and state levels have invested millions of dollars in the pursuit to increase college completion and many smart people are working on the challenge, but how has that changed the way we run our colleges and universities?  
 
Ivy Tech Community College is one of several striving to accomplish that goal by minimizing the time it takes to earn a degree. Despite the controversy that has surrounded selected accelerated degree programs, some have boasted graduation rates higher than 50% — far above the national average for traditional associate degree programs. One distinguishing factor is that unlike traditional degree programs, accelerated ones are cohort-based. This means that students enter and exit as a group, and it is easier to advise and support students together. While it is true that not every student who walks through the doors of Ivy Tech has the option to participate in an accelerated program, that is a good thing. Accelerated programs do not work for every student. Even though the program currently is available to only some students at a few of the campuses, the important thing is that we should be open to new options for those students who can succeed in a different academic setting.
 
When the livelihood of our economy is resting on the hope that postsecondary institutions can try new ideas and work to increase the number of students who walk out with a diploma, it is no time for professors, administrators or policymakers to resist change simply because they fear the unknown.  Instead, we must embrace new ideas and be open to change — or else we merely accept stagnation and support the status quo. 
 
Inside Higher Ed had the details on “Picking Up the Pace” in a recent story.

Analyzing the WGU Benefits

Gov. Daniels announced the creation of WGU (Western Governors University) Indiana last month to increase higher ed options in the state and hopefully drive more students to completion. An Inside Higher Ed article (read it here) earlier this week featured the Indiana effort and the potential of similar arrangements in other locales.

Indiana Chamber education expert Derek Redelman commented on that story, to provide more information and to further explain the benefits for Hoosiers. Again, the full story is above for those who need the background; the majority of Derek’s post is featured below and enhances the understanding.

The formation of WGU Indiana, along with Gov. Daniels’ strong public endorsement, offers a terrific opportunity for Indiana learners – for all the reasons that the story portrays. But there are more components to this development than is even noted in the story: First, the price structure is for time rather than credit hours or semesters. $3,000 will buy the student as many courses as he/she can complete in the six-month time period. So there’s a direct incentive – and a reward – for working hard.

Second, start times are flexible – with new groups starting every month of the year. So there’s no more waiting around for a new semester to begin. Once that adult learner takes the initiative to pursue his/her options, he/she can get started almost immediately – while the motivation is still high. That should lead to fewer lost opportunities. Third, completion/advancement is based on competency demonstration and is flexible to the individual learner’s pace. So for those students who need a rerfresher rather than a semester-long course, or for those who are able/willing to work faster than the traditional college pace, there is opportunity (and incentive) to do so.

While none of this is completely new, it is unique – as best that I am aware – as the default approach for any other institution operating in Indiana.

I do hope that the approaches offered by WGU will catch hold in other Indiana institutions. Yes, there are other online learning opportunities offered by nearly all – maybe every single one – of our public institutions. But how many of those are offered with the incentives/components noted in the story? I am aware of none. As for course articulation agreements that will be helpful to students, my observations indicate that we remain far, far away from achieving the level of convenience necessary.

I recall in the 1990s sitting through three years of monthly meetings – lasting 4+ hours per meeting – as our state institutions struggled to meet a legislative mandate for just 10 entry-level, for-credit courses to be tranferrable across all public institutions. Yes, the ’90s are "ancient history" at this point. And yes, Indiana is now well beyond that initial 10-course mandate. But the process for expanding on those articulation agreements remains incredibly arduous and the results of current agreements remain confusing to students. Indeed, there are courses taught at one branch of our intitutions that do not even transfer to other branches of the same institution. As yet another development resulting from the creation of WGU Indiana, it is my understanding that every single course taught at our community college system will be transferrable to WGU – and they did that without a years-long, committee laden, course-by-course, campus-by-campus process.

I remain a biased advocate for Indiana’s entire higher education system, and I completely agree with those who suggest that there are terrific opportunities here. But even the best can get better. And the addition of WGU Indiana adds one more institution to that portfolio of great options.  

Jones, Merisotis Offer Education Plan

Stan Jones, Indiana’s longtime commissioner for higher education, was the Indiana Chamber’s 2009 Government Leader of the Year (BizVoice story here). Jamie Merisotis is president of the Indianapolis-based Lumina Foundation for Education. The two teamed last Friday to deliver a clear message to the Obama administration: get newly appropriated funds to community colleges that do a good job taking displaced workers, helping them earn a needed certificate in a timely manner and putting those people back in the workforce.

Inside Higher Ed has an in-depth report on their proposal. Here are some key excerpts:

While Merisotis and Jones did not set a time limit, they generally praised as models programs that take a year, maximum, to finish – quite a contrast from the two-year norm for many associate degrees – assuming students enroll full time. If anything, the model Merisotis believes community colleges around the country should emulate is a rather old idea – that of a traditional vocational school.

In a handful of states – Ohio, New York, Tennessee, Washington and Wisconsin – there are technical institutions separate from community colleges. In Tennessee, for instance, 13 community colleges offer associate degree programs, whereas 27 “technical centers” offer only one-year certificate programs in high-demand fields. These institutions, like for-profit trade institutions, focus on getting students a credential and getting them out out in a short period of time.

Jones: "There’s nothing wrong with directed choice. … I call it kind of back to the future. They didn’t invent this yesterday; They’ve been doing this [in Tennessee] for 20 years. Some of the rest of us kind of discovered it – that they were on the right track for 20 years. Block scheduled, cohort-based, integrated – it’s highly effective.”

Jones and Merisotis believe the government should encourage the development of short-term, quick-hit programs like this at community colleges around the country with the $2 billion Community College and Career Training Grant program, which passed as part of the health care/student loan reconciliation bill earlier this year.

Additionally, Jones and Merisotis say that Congress should extend unemployment benefits so that anyone receiving them can attend college, as long as they are enrolled full-time in a one- or two-year degree program. Finally, they suggest that the government create a new program of “education stipends” to offset the tuition and living costs of going to college, essentially making the completion of a program the “job” of the recipient. 

Are SAT and ACT Tests Too “Old School?”

According to Inside Higher Ed, the National Association for College Admission Counseling has launched a panel asking colleges to consider dropping SAT and ACT results as admission guidelines:

The panel, in a report to be formally released this week (PDF file), calls on all colleges to consider more systematically whether they really need testing to admit their students. If there is not clear evidence of the need for testing, the commission urges the colleges to drop the requirement and it expresses the view that there are likely more colleges and universities that could make such a change …

Colleges that have conducted in-depth analyses of the value of standardized tests have frequently ended up questioning the tests’ use. For example, the University of California recently studied whether SAT subject tests helped admissions decisions and found — generally — that they do not. Hamilton College, prior to abandoning an SAT requirement in 2006, conducted a five-year experiment being SAT-optional. During that time, the 40 percent of students who didn’t submit SAT scores performed slightly better at Hamilton — a highly competitive liberal arts college — than did those who did submit scores. And in a finding consistent with studies at other colleges, Hamilton found that when it went test-optional, it received more applications from students at the top of their high school classes and many more applications from minority students.

Pretty interesting stuff.

Hat tip to Reason Magazine’s blog.