Playing the Blame Game

Matthew Lynch - With skyrocketing costs, budget crises, inconsistent curricula, poor standardized testing scores, and poor morale among teachers, administrators, and students, the need for sustainable and pervasive educational change is greater now than ever before.

The numbers of questions related to the quality of the U.S. educational system from multiple sectors of society is at an all-time high. Many American parents have seen reports that American schools rank well below schools in countries such as China and Japan, or have heard President Obama declare a “dropout crisis” in the USA. An abundance of news reports and discouraging case studies has created panic among education stakeholders, who want to know why American school systems are failing. However, many insist on playing the “blame game,” which in most cases is counterproductive.

Many Americans believe that only a small percentage of leaders understand the complexities of the school system, and that individuals who do understand the intricacies of the system use their knowledge to justify the mediocre performance of our teachers and students. The American school system is the best-financed system in the world, but is one of the lowest performing. The American school system as a whole has an appalling performance record. For children living in urban environments, the story is even more alarming. Students from low socioeconomic backgrounds are often educated in dilapidated schools where the too many educators lack the credentials and skills necessary to perform their duties adequately. High student-to-teacher ratios are found in most urban schools, and these schools often lack the resources to deal with the diverse challenges they face, including unruly student behavior. Education has been called the great equalizer, but for students living in poverty-stricken urban areas it is little more than a babysitting service and a place to get a hot meal.

Many question whether the No Child Left Behind Act has contributed to achieving academic success. Although NCLB was well intentioned, it has not lived up to the hopes of government or schools. In the eyes of some, NCLB has actually contributed to subpar academics becoming even worse. If American educators and school personnel do not make a concerted effort to develop effective measures to hold schools accountable for the education of all of our children, then the education crisis will continue.

There is an exception to every rule: some urban school systems are providing a quality education. Unfortunately, however, only a small number of school systems meet the state and federal government student performance requirements. For underperforming urban school systems, the problem usually lies with the inability to sustain existing reform efforts and initiatives. Mayors and school superintendents in these areas often concoct grandiose reform plans that are merely political devices meant to beguile voters into believing they genuinely care about educational reform. The idea that politicians create school reform to gain popularity and votes is sad and sobering. It is discouraging to realize that our children’s futures might be used as a political device to win elections.

Politicians are not the only people at fault for the shoddy education American children are receiving, but no one will take responsibility for subpar educational environments. If administrators were asked who was at fault, they might point to a lack of parental involvement and too few quality teachers. If teachers were asked who was at fault they might also cite a lack of parental involvement and ineffective administration. If parents were asked who was at fault they might blame teachers and school administrators. Society in general seems to conclude that the lack of quality teachers, effective administration, and parental involvement are all factors contributing to educational failure.

Whatever the reason, Americans have become the laughing stock of the free world when it comes to K-12 education. The solution, of course, is for the country to unite and work together to carry the responsibility of enriching and continuing America’s future via educational excellence without playing the “blame game.”

source:http://www.educationnews.org/commentaries/152844.html

Obama’s Budget Proposes a Significant Increase for Schools

President Obama proposed a 2012 Department of Education budget on Monday that would, if approved, significantly increase federal spending for public schools, and maintain the maximum Pell grant — the cornerstone financial-aid program — at $5,550 per college student.

Whether it will be possible to keep that Pell maximum remains uncertain, however, given that House Republicans have proposed cutting the maximum by about $845, or 15 percent, in their proposal to extend the current budget.

The administration’s education proposal asks for $77.4 billion. That includes $48.8 billion for the portion of the education budget that does not include Pell grants, or an increase of about 4 percent above the 2010 budget. Congress has not yet enacted the 2011 budget.

Among education programs that the administration was protecting was Race to the Top, the competitive grant program that the administration has made its centerpiece initiative. Last year the administration used the Race to the Top to channel $4 billion in economic stimulus money to New York and other states that had proposed bold school improvement plans.

The 2012 budget proposal includes $900 million for Race to the Top, which the administration says would be awarded this time not to states but to school districts. That would make it possible, for instance, to channel money to Houston or other districts in Texas that wanted to compete in the Race to the Top initiative but could not because their state declined to participate.

Some House Republicans are skeptical of the program, however, and — like other line items in the education budget — it could face trims or elimination as Congress works on its own budget and the administration’s.

The Republicans also propose to cut $1.1 billion from the Head Start program, which, according to estimates by theNational Head Start Association, would eliminate services for more than 200,000 children and the jobs of more than 50,000 Head Start employees.

Reacting to the administration’s budget, Representative John Kline, the Minnesota Republican who is chairman of the House Education and the Workforce Committee, indicated a reluctance to invest more in education.

“Over the last 45 years we have increased our investment in education, but the return on that investment has failed to improve student achievement,” Mr. Kline said. “Throwing more money at our nation’s broken education system ignores reality and does a disservice to students and taxpayers.”

The administration’s education proposal also includes $600 million for School Turnaround Grants, another favorite of the president and of Secretary of Education Arne Duncan. This would be a $54 million increase above 2010 levels. The turnaround effort, which the administration hopes will finance makeovers of thousands of the country’s worst schools, was also financed with billions in economic stimulus money.

The vast program known as Title I, which channels money to school districts to help them educate disadvantaged children, would receive $14.8 billion, an increase of $300 million over 2010.

Last year, the president said that, to remain competitive, the nation must increase the number of college graduates. But forced to make deep cuts in many areas of government, the president now proposes to eliminate some provisions of the Pell program, which has doubled in size over five years, and serves nine million low-income students. The administration’s budget would end Pell grants for summer students and end interest subsidies on graduate students’ loans.

“We’re making some tough choices to protect the Pell grant,” Justin Hamilton, a department spokesman, said Monday in an e-mail statement. “We’re cutting where we can so that we can invest where we must.”

Congress passed the legislation providing an extra $36 billion over 10 years for the Pell program, and increasing the maximum grant to $5,550 only last year. But with the new Congress’s emphasis on cost-cutting, Pell grants became a prime focal point for cost-cutting. Beyond the 15 percent cut in this fall’s Pell grants, the House Republicans’ proposal would, over 10 years, cut $56 billion from the program.

Mr. Kline said the Democrats had expanded Pells beyond what taxpayers can afford and put the program on the path to bankruptcy.

But education groups warned that cutting the Pell program would put college out of reach for many low-income students.

“With millions of Americans struggling to make ends meet, cutting Pell grants would pull the rug right out from under students and families who are counting on these crucial grants to help pay for college this fall,” said Lauren Asher of the Project on Student Debt.

source:http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/15/us/15education.html?_r=1&ref=education

US: New funding models for international education

One year ago, in a speech to American international education leaders in Washington DC, Chancellor Nancy Zimpher (pictured) of the State University of New York argued that presidents, chancellors and senior administrators cannot simply talk about making their campuses more internationalised - they must do something. She said: "Rhetoric is not going to get it done. We have to commit ourselves, we have to hold ourselves to public action." 

In the year since her speech, we at SUNY have been moving toward an approach we call 'performance-based reinvestment', which is designed to create the financial resources needed to achieve sweeping internationalisation goals. And we have developed tools that we hope will assist other American institutions of higher education to also meet their potential. This approach and these tools can be effective even as budgets are slashed.

It is particularly timely that this approach be shared now, given the administration's recently announced '100,000 Strong Initiative' and Obama's call in his State of the Union address to reform immigration laws so that the US retains talented and responsible foreign graduates of its colleges and universities.

With these calls, the Obama administration is clearly signalling the need for an aggressive posture both on the outbound and inbound sides of the international education equation. 

The dilemma

As Zimpher observed last year, many college and university presidents have made it a standard part of their talking points to set increasing targets for study abroad, faculty international engagement and curricular internationalisation.

While those of us charged with achieving these international objectives applaud this increased attention to the importance of internationalisation, many of us also note that in this economic environment the rhetoric is rarely matched by the budget to achieve these lofty goals. In fact, in many cases our international budgets are simultaneously being cut, even as ever-higher objectives are set.

With diminished resources and increasing expectations, is it better for international officers to encourage institutional leadership to pull back? In essence, to reduce expectations? We think not. Far better would be to persuade campus leadership to adopt a new approach that will increase our capacity to achieve the objectives that have been so publicly and repeatedly advocated, by both campus and national leaders.

But to do this we need entirely new sources of funds; ideally, funds that are sustainable and within our ability to nurture and grow. The approach being pursued by SUNY is intended to break the shackles of diminished resources and expectations.

SUNY's approach: Performance-based reinvestment

The United States remains the most desired destination for international students, and demand for international education continues to grow at a high rate. Yet despite the large numbers of international students on US shores, these students comprise less than 4% of our total enrolment in higher education.

Furthermore, although overall enrolment is currently at a national high water mark, all projections show looming declines in domestic enrolment, as the current demographic bulge moves through the system and the economy improves - both of which are inevitable over the next two to four years. In other words, we must anticipate increasing absorptive capacity at many US institutions. 

We must strategically tap into this market to both internationalise our campuses and provide the financial resources to achieve our objectives. It is critical to create a 'virtuous circle', connecting new income associated with international student tuition with the other imperatives of internationalisation, ie study abroad scholarships, faculty internationalisation grants, scholars-at-risk funding, international services infrastructure, etc. 

Showing your institution the way

The capacity building model we are advocating requires two things. First, senior university administrators must admit that their rhetoric is not currently matched with adequate funding. Second, they must agree to make international student recruitment a priority, but that it must be linked to the other key internationalisation goals. In other words re-invest some negotiated quantum of that new, 'found' revenue into the areas mentioned above.

It is time to put their money where their mouth is - and the strategy we outline here can help them do so.

SUNY has developed a simple forecasting model - a tool - that provides institutions with the means to make a compelling case for internal change. It allows administrators to demonstrate in concrete numbers how goals and allocations affect each other, and the desired outcomes.

Using this model, leaders can demonstrate the advantages of redirecting some percentage of incoming international tuition revenue back toward international operations holistically. It is up to each institution to determine how these funds would be allocated among its various priorities, be they study abroad scholarships, faculty internationalisation grants, programme subsidies, or professional development and administrative support systems. 

At SUNY we believe that with our tuition structure a 'sweep' of about 18% of the first year's international student tuition will be sufficient to meet very ambitious internationalisation goals. At your institution, the percentage may be less or more.

One thing is certain, however: much can be done with even a remarkably small 'sweep'. The forecasting model we have developed has allowed SUNY to test our recruiting assumptions against our core internationalisation capacity objectives. Other institutions can do the same. 

We encourage all colleges and universities to explore your own opportunities using this tool. Even small numbers can create meaningful impacts at small institutions; five new study abroad scholarships per year as a result of this strategy means five lives changed. However we believe that, in most cases, the benefits can be far more significant than just a few scholarships.

Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have issued a challenge with the '100,000 Strong Initiative', asking us to dramatically increase study abroad to China, yet providing no tangible funding sources beyond the suggestion that it be found by us in the private sector. 

How better to fund initiatives such as this one, than through revenue generated by incoming international student tuition revenue, which is, in fact, private sector-based? 

Time for action, from the top and from below

Now is the time for American colleges and universities to make the case for a more coherent national policy toward the export of US higher education services, and the recruitment of international students as a key component of that export trade.

There must be a rational discussion among key government agencies, including the Department of State, the Department of Commerce and the Department of Education, as well as leading educational associations and bodies such as NAFSA, IIE, AIEA, APLU, ACE, AIRC, the College Board and others. Now is the time for a summit designed to chart a new direction. 

But institutions should not wait for the summit. They can start at home, with their own institution. Now. They can share their successes and frustrations as they work toward a common goal of becoming the most internationalised system of higher education in the world, providing opportunities for all students to obtain the international experiences that they need to become productive members of the global workforce. 

SUNY's forecasting model is designed to allow all types of institutions - small and large, public and private - to concretely demonstrate how the changes advocated here can produce positive, tangible capacity improvements in a very short time. The model can be downloaded here.

* Mitch Leventhal is Vice-chancellor for Global Affairs at the State University of New York (SUNY). A version of this article was sent to members of the Association of International Education Administrators earlier this year. The AIEA holds its annual conference from 20-23 February. 

Printable version

Email to a friend

Comment on this article 

Disclaimer: All reader responses posted on this site are those of the reader ONLY and NOT those of University World News or Higher Education Web Publishing, their associated trademarks, websites and services. University World News or Higher Education Web Publishing does not necessarily endorse, support, sanction, encourage, verify or agree with any comments, opinions or statements or other content provided by readers.

source:http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20110211204106430