USDOE Race to the Top Grant Winners Indicate Major Shift in Federal Policy

To read a colorful online version of the NewsBlast with a larger typeface, visit:  http://www.publiceducation.org/newsblast_current.asp

Delaware and Tennessee cross the finish line According to The Wall Street Journal, the Obama administration has "delivered a jolt to U.S. public education" by selecting only two out of 40 applicant states, Delaware and Tennessee, to receive $600 million in Race to the Top funds ($100 million and $500 million, respectively). In selecting the winners, the Department of Education used a complicated scoring system that weighted various factors, from states' willingness to track student and teacher performance and adopt uniform standards to an openness regarding turning around or closing their worst schools. Delaware garnered 454 out of a possible 500 points, while Tennessee accrued 444. The District of Columbia, which came in last among the 16 finalists, received 402 points. Other finalists had been Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and South Carolina. Education experts and administration officials say two factors set apart the winning states' plans: their coherence, and their likelihood of implementation. All local unions in Delaware backed their state's bid, while 93 percent lent support in Tennessee. The administration still has $3.4 billion to award in a second round, with that announcement expected in late September .http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052702304370304575151682457897668-lMyQjAxMTAwMDIwOTEyNDkyWj.html

What does this mean? Certainly no more business as usual with federal grant applications. Amopng the many lessons is the federal government requires nearly universal involvement by stakeholders throughout the state and at all levels. Watch the national press and the educational press such as the Chronicle of Higher Education for analysis. This was a massive wakeup call.

Report on California Developmental Education

Back to Basics: Improving College Readiness of Community College (2008). Elizabeth G. Hill • Legislative Analyst http://www.lao.ca.gov/2008/edu/ccc_readiness/ccc_readiness_0608.pdf

I highly recommend reading this report about remedial and developmental education in California. It raises critical issues, especially the need for more structure and mandatory participation in such programs for identified students and the need to partner more effectively with secondary education. Following are several short excerpts from the report.

"While the state and community colleges are investing a significant amount of time and money in basic skills education, we believe that substantial advancements can only come about if CCC changes its policies to promote a more effective delivery of services. In this report, we identified several areas of potential improvements at the community colleges, as well as statutory changes for legislative consideration. Taken together, we believe that these recommendations would help to increase the preparation levels of recent high school graduates and the ability of the community colleges to identify, place, and counsel basic skills students.􀀹Provide an indication to high school students about their readiness for college-level work at California Community Colleges (CCC) by expanding California State University’s Early Assessment Program."

Four Major Recommendations from the Report:
1. Develop a CCC placement test based on K-12’s English and math Cali-fornia Standards Tests (CST).
2. For colleges that choose to retain their current placement exam, require their acceptance of CST results and translation of CST scores into their own test results as a condition of receiving “basic skills initiative��? funds.
3. Enact legislation that allows colleges to require underprepared students to take basic skills coursework beginning in their first term.
4. Allow CCC to provide more support services to students by amending the “fifty percent law,��? which currently limits colleges’ fiscal flexibility to hire academic counselors.

Mapa de espana por ciudades

Cloud, J. (2002, October 14). Who's ready for colege? [Sic] Conservatives want to get rid of remedial education. If so, only two-thirds of today's freshmen need apply. Time Magazine. This is one of the few times that the mainstream press has reported on developmental education. Rather than focusing on a more balanced presentation, the article focuses on the proposed policies in a few states regarding what they call remedial education.
The article repeats previously reported research such as about one-third of entering students need to enroll in one or more developmental courses. Several states are reported to ban financial support for developmental education, even at the community college level.

Empleo hotel mexico

O’Brien, C. T. (2004). Indicators of opportunity in higher education. Washington, D.C.: The Pell Institute for the Study of Opportunity in Higher Education. Most students from low-income families (below $25,000 annual income) do not attend college since it appears unattainable. Those who do attend from this group generally attend public two your or proprietary colleges. Most of these students will not complete a four-year baccalaureate degree. Postsecondary education is becoming more stratified by students’ income.

Modelo en monterrey

Comparing past and current policies concerning academic access, developmental education, and learning assistance programs helps to identify emerging trends that may have regional or national impact on the field. As suggested by the futuring model developed by John Naisbitt and others, it is important to observe activities and policies developed in California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, and Texas. For a variety of geographic and demographic reasons, these “leading indicator�? states often are predictive of future trends in a wide variety of areas in American society. The reader is encouraged to be especially observant of events occurring in these states.
The entries on this blog for the next few weeks will focus on a number of reports and publications on policies related to access programs. One of the challenges with this analysis is understanding whether the policies represent a growing trend. Policies can be as different as night and day between states that adjoin one another. While some states have enacted policies that have reduced access, the majority of the time such policies are not approved by the state legislatures. Hopefully the blog entries over the next few weeks will allow you to draw your own conclusions on this controversial area of scholarship.

breast+enhancement

Kipp, S. M., Price, D. V., & Wohlford, J. K. (2002). Unequal opportunity: Disparities in college access among the 50 states. Indianapolis, IN: Lumina Foundation for Education. Retrieved July 4, 2004, from: http://www.luminafoundation.org This national study investigates academic access in all 50 states for students of varying levels of income and academic preparation. Two major dimensions were studied at the 2,800 postsecondary institutions in the study: admissibility and affordability. While most states provide low-income dependent students with access to public two-year institutions without borrowing, fewer states provide similar access to public four-year institutions.
The major findings of the study include: the percentage of admissible institutions varies widely among states; the percentage of affordable institutions varies widely among states; low-income dependent and independent students have fewer accessible options than median-income students; and borrowing is more frequently required to achieve affordability for low-income dependent students than it is for median-income dependent students. Part of this variability in access is due to differences across and within states in students' academic preparation, selectivity of institutions, variations in tuition policies, and variations regarding state financial aid programs.

Access Education in Massachusetts

Task Force on Remedial Education. (1997). Report of the task force on remedial education. Boston, MA: University of Massachusetts. Retrieved July 4, 2004, from: http://cit.necc.mass.edu/mccdec/Report%20of%20the%20Task%20Force.htm
In this document, the Task Force on Remedial Education examines the issue of remedial education, describes the scope of remedial education at the University,
The report offers recommendations for policies and administrative procedures that will foster student learning through remedial education: 1. The University of Massachusetts should continue to offer limited remedial programs to address the needs of its admitted students. 2. The University and the Community Colleges should explore additional avenues of collaboration that might improve or enhance the quality and cost-effectiveness of remediation available to students enrolled in both sectors. 3. All entering first-time freshmen and transfer students should continue to be assessed by each campus to determine appropriate course assignments for mathematics and writing. 4. Campus faculty and administrators responsible for remedial programs at UMass campuses should increase their levels of communication and collaboration with each other. 5. The University should develop better methods for assessing the outcomes of remedial instruction, working collaboratively with other sectors of higher education as necessary.