American Graduation Initiative

The issue of performance based funding is coming to light at both the federal and state levels. President Obama introduced a student aid bill in 2009, that would provide over nine billion dollars to community colleges. The goal of the increased funding is to increase the number of students who graduate. Obama wants America to lead the world in college degrees by 2020 and the administration realizes that community colleges will play a major role in achieving this goal (White House, 2009; AACC, n.d.).

The American Graduation Initiative will assist community colleges in creating new innovation and reforms. The administration understands that community colleges are often underfunded and lack the basis resources needed for instruction, and creation of reforms (White House, 2009; AACC, n.d.). The Community College Challenge Fund will allow community colleges to compete for grants that will help establish new reforms and innovative ideas. Colleges that receive the grants will have demonstrated improved educational and employment outcomes by building more relationships with business and community leaders, by expanding course offerings, and by improving remedial adult education programs (2009; n.d.).

The idea of research at the community college level is a fairly new concept. Typically, research has been the primary focus of universities. However, the initiative will support research centers whose mission will be to create, pilot and implement new measures of success so that students will have a clear picture of the effectiveness of the community college (White House, 2009; AACC, n.d.). In addition, the funds will help to close the achievement gap within community colleges by helping colleges to adopt new approaches to performance based scholarships, funding based on student progress and learning communities of students (2009, n.d.). Funding will also go towards the improvement of community college campuses. Many campuses were built many years ago and do not have the funds for upgrades or improvements therefore creating inefficient space for an ever growing population. Under the new plan, Obama would allot dollars towards community college facility investments that will expand the college's ability to serve the student and the community (2009, n.d.). Lastly, the plan will cover online or distance education. More and more students are looking for less intrusive and more convenient courses. The funds will help community colleges create more interactive software and will expand learning opportunities to rural areas or to working adults who have jobs and families (2009, 2010).

White House. (2009). Excerpts of the president's remarks in Warren, Michigan and fact sheet on the american graduation initiative. Retrieved from on June 27, 2010.
AACC. (n.d.). Background information and fact sheet. Retrieved from on June 27, 2010.

What board are doing and not doing in reviewing institutional costs

Wellman, J. (2007). What board are doing and not doing in reviewing institutional costs. Retrieved from http://www.nacubo.org/documents/research/WellmanWhatBoardsWeb.pdf.

Higher education finance topics tend to focus on rising tuition cost, decreased funding in financial aid and decreased funding in state appropriations (Wellman, 2007). While these issues are relative and important, a more important topic is how colleges and universities are spending their money. Cost management without comprising quality and access is just as important as rising tuition rates. Cost management can mean making informed decisions about spending based on data (Wellman, 2007). While governing boards play a primary role in strategic planning and oversight, it is unknown how they oversee actual costs, whether they are playing an effective role and how their effectiveness can be improved.  

The College Project conducted a study using focus groups and interviews with board members and college president's about the role of the board in relation to cost oversight (Wellman, 2007). The study revealed that college presidents and board members are highly concerned with funding trends and with more board involvement will strengthen accountability for cost management (Wellman, 2007). Although the presidents want to see more involvement, they do not the board consumed by the accounting side of spending.

It is important for colleges, universities and boards to take a closer look at spending. With appropriations being cut every year, they need to look at better business practices and doing more with less. Cutting costs does not mean cutting quality. There are ways to maintain quality while still cutting costs. Such ways include being transparent, identifying tradeoffs, being open and patient in analyzing costs and spending, developing benchmark data and involving every stakeholder involved in the decision making process (Wellman, 2007).

Funding Models for Community Colleges

In the study, Kenton focused on 12 funds revenue sources between 1990 and 2000 for community colleges in 10 Midwest states. Data was provided by NCES and IPEDS. Based on the study, four models of funding were identified and the models generated revenue over the HEPI. Primary funding for colleges comes from a variety of sources including tuition and fees, local taxes, state aid, and federal aid. Tuition has increased over the years while subsidies steadily decline. Funding sources vary by state. Some states rely mostly on tuition and fees whereas other states rely on state appropriations. Funding models are of importance to college administrators and some models yield more revenue than others. Funding sources are key for an organizational structure to survive. The resource dependency model attempts to explain organizational and interorganizational behavior in terms of what resources the organization needs to survive. Based on the study, the funding patterns for the colleges fell in line with the premise of the resource dependency model. When more funds are raised, the rate of spending increases or exceeds inflation. When funds are low, colleges look to other sources. If an open access policy is in place, less emphasis is placed on tuition and fees. If the primary focus is serving the local community, more emphasis is placed on local appropriations.

Kenton, C. (2004). Funding models of community colleges in 10 midwest states. Community College Review, Winter 2004.

Managing costs through wise practices so productivity increases

The challenge for institutions is to help more people achieve higher levels of education and to use resources and funding wisely in the process. The National Center for Higher Education Management Systems report offers policymakers, state leaders, and institutions new strategies for fostering improvement in cost-effective ways. It also provides a set of policy levers that can help spur change (NCHEMS, 2007 #04-7).

           

For those states that do not perform well in increasing the educational level of their population, the results show that the economic outcome will be seriously negative. If current trends continue, the proportion of workers with high school diplomas and college degrees will decrease, and the average personal income of Americans will decline over the next few years.

There are several areas that can assist the universities in their goal of improving the quality of education.  One of those that I personally work in is the adult education programs.

It is important to improve the preparation of traditional college-age students,  but states can also improve the preparation of adults for continuing their education or training. For example, this can include encouraging adults to complete a high school-level education, usually through a GED, and offering a specialized postsecondary curriculum targeted to those who have not participated in an educational program recently.  One example is the program called KYAE, the Kentucky Adult Education program, that works with universities to assist the over one million adults needing an education.

Several pages of examples of ways to increase productivity were outlined in the report.  Some of those included: “improving productivity encompassing a range of actions, including conducting system and institutional audits, redesigning courses to introduce more technology, developing incentives and better aligning course offerings with student demand, and shortening time-to-degree from five or six years to three or four."  I know that several universities are offering shortened degree completion programs for non-traditional students.

There are no magical cures for all issues related to cost.  Every strategy for raising productivity, improving quality, and containing costs should be examined closely, and then adapted to the conditions of particular states or institutions. This report states that "most strategies, including our examples, can have a major impact on educational productivity only if implemented on a large scale, across many institutions or entire states."

                                              Reference

Callan, P., Ewell, P., Finney, J. & Jones, D.   (2007).  Good policy, good practice. Retrieved October 29, 2011 from http://www.highereducation.org/reports/Policy_Practice/GPGP.pdf

Effects of Student Retention and Graduation on Cost Disease

           A major contributor to both higher costs for institutions, students, and taxpayers and lower productivity is the relative low graduation rates of degree-seeking students.  A study by the American Institutes of Research (AIR) estimated the costs f full-time degree-seeking students who began college in the fall of 2002 (Schneider & Yin, 2011).  Those who did not complete a degree within six years cost an estimated  $3.8 billion in income to themselves, $566 million in lost federal income taxes, and $164 in lost state income taxes (Schneider & Yin, 2011).  These estimates were made based on US Census Bureau data that show that graduates between the ages of 25 and 34 earn about 40 % more than their non-graduate counterparts (Schneider & Yin, 2011).  Although the AIR’s estimates excluded the effects of part time student dropouts and the successful graduation of transfer students, the effect of dropping out is still evident, lost revenue.  This study also does not account for the wasted spending, in tax dollars, by federal, state, and local governments in subsidizing the educations of those students who do not complete their degrees.

            However, another study conducted by the AIR estimates the wasted government spending on community college dropouts.  The study estimates the amount of money spent on first year community college students who do not return for a second  year over the 2004/2005 to 2008/2009 academic years.  They find that $3.85 billion in federal, state, and local appropriations and grants was spent over this time period (CollegeMeasures.org, 2011).

            These data show evidence that institutions, students, and taxpayers are wasting both money and time on students who do not complete their degrees.  To what extent these dropouts effect the greater economy is arguable, and needs more compelling evidence, but these studies provide evidence that time and money are spent to help students earn a degree that they do not complete.  A possible solution for this problem is to delay acceptance into an institution by a year so that students could prepare for the challenges that lay ahead.  Some people view college as a time period to postpone an adult life style or an attempt to “figure things out.”  Higher education should not be viewed as a “time out” period. but as a means to achieve one’s professional goals.  In actuality, the demands of balancing education, work, and family provide more conflicts and dilemmas.  Universities and colleges could accept students and provide an orientation a year in advance as an attempt to allow the student to consider lifestyles changes.  This time period would allow for reflection and rededication of their educational and professional goals. 

CollegeMeasures.org website. (2011). Community college dropouts cost taxpayers nearly $4 billion. Retrieved from http://collegemeasures.org/post/2011/10/Community-College-Dropouts-Cost-Taxpayers-Nearly-244-Billion.aspx

Schnedier & Lin. (2011). The high cost of low graduation rates: How much does dropping out of college rally cost? Retrieved from http://www.air.org/files/AIR_High_Cost_of_Low_Graduation_Aug2011.pdf

Changing social scene

I have found some information about the upward trend of college costs.  Stanley Fish of the New York Times asked Archibald and Feldman about the changes in income distribution over the last 30 years. They contend that people with high levels of education have seen big income gains. Universities rely on highly educated people, as do hospitals, law offices and dental practices, to name a few. Rising income inequality is a force for rising cost in any industry like higher education. And rising income inequality also drives affordability problems.

I believe that this income inequality has created further cost issues for the low income student. Rising income inequality in the United States drives longer-term affordability problems as the unskilled fall further behind the well-educated. For these families, affordability is a real issue. Solving these real affordability problems is hard.

Because of the increasing affordability issues, President Obama has announced an American Graduation Initiative to produce five million more community college by 2020. There is even a popular television comedy, “Community,” set at a two-year college according to Tamar Lewin of the New York Times.
                                                          
It appears that the changing social climate will make it necessary for federal, state, and local interventions to ensure the continuing future of higher education for all people. The idea that education is a "right" can still have some merit, as long as there are those who work to make radical changes in funding.

                                                                       Reference

Fish, S.   (2011).  College costs, the sequel.  New York Times.  Retrieved October 29, 2011 from http://lclane2.net/college4.html

The need for a unified accreditation system

History & Role of Accreditation

The first accrediting organization was created in 1880, with a primary focus on educational standards and admissions for institutions within the region (“Accrediting council for”). At first, accreditation standards were developed on a regional basis, “but gradually national accreditation standards were developed to provide minimum quality standards throughout the United States” (“Accrediting council for”). Thus, in 1912, 23 private career schools formed the National Association of Accredited Commercial Schools, which became the first national accrediting agency (“Accrediting council for”). At the same time national standards where evolving, professional schools begin creating standards for their members to follow.

Currently, there are 52 national accrediting organizations recognized by the United States Department of Education (“US dept of”). Additionally, there are six regional accrediting bodies used by colleges in the United States. Accreditation membership grew over time, but saw a major increase because of the Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944. Although the Act had been in existence for almost a decade, it was reintroduced for service members returning from the Korean War in 1952. During this time, fraudulent colleges were being created and were taking advantage of service members in order to obtain their GI Bill funds. Therefore, Congress amended the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act to read, “in order for servicemen to receive proceeds from the GI Bill they must attend an accredited institution” (Wellman, 1998, p. 4). “Accreditation also is used for state oversight purposes, both as a substitute for state review of accredited institutions’ quality (in some states) and in relation to professional school licensing examinations” (Wellman, p. 3). Additionally, institutions examine accrediting bodies when deciding whether or not to allow transfer credits for students (Wellman, p.3).

As time has passed, accrediting organizations have expanded their requirements, and increased their stipulations as to what their members must do. From monitoring student growth and retention rates while the student is enrolled, to tracking a student’s progress long after they have graduated. Unfortunately, these items are a small component compared to the overall process of maintaining accreditation.

Types of Accreditation

There are two types of accreditation themes – Institutional and Program/Professional, also known as Specialized accreditation (Koenig, Lofstad, & Staab, 2004, p. 3). Institutional accreditation is the process of accrediting an institution as a whole. The review process focuses on evaluating the Institution as an entity (Koenig, Lofstad, & Staab, p. 3). Program or Professional accreditation is the act of accrediting a specific program of study within an institution (Koenig, Lofstad, & Staab, p.4). Therefore, the accreditation review process focuses on just one department, program or curriculum under the institution’s umbrella.

Policy Factors of Accreditation

According to Koenig, Lofstad, & Staab (2004), McIntyre (2005), and Wellman (1998), the accreditation status of an educational institution plays an important role in the following scenarios:

(1) Assessment of a student’s educational background for:

1.     Admission to postsecondary educational institutions.

2.     Admission to graduate school.

3.     Transfer of credit from one institution to another.

4.     Academic eligibility for scholarships, athletics, research grants, and internships.

(2) Student eligibility for financial assistance from government programs.

(3) Institutional eligibility for financial assistance from the US federal

government and State governments.

(4) A student’s eligibility for licensure or certification in a profession that

requires completion from an accredited program, or a program at an

accredited institution.

(5) An individual’s eligibility for employment in a position that requires

completion of an accredited program or a program at an accredited institution.

Albeit, accreditation was created over a century ago, the purpose is still necessary. However, when institutions have to follow multiple accreditation agency standards, the cost to maintain those standards becomes expensive. For example, the University of Tennessee Health Science Center’s College of Allied Health Sciences has to manage accreditation for over 24 accrediting bodies. With annual dues for accreditation being greater than $10,000 for a few, this price adds up. Is it necessary to have that many regulatory agencies?  I would say it is not and these actions increase the cost disease that students and institutions face. If the government or agencies themselves could come up with a better and easier standard to follow, then the cost of an education might become more manageable to obtain. Until such actions are tackled, the same issue will continue.

Accrediting council for independent colleges and schools. (n.d.). Retrieved from

http://www.acics.org/

Koenig, A., Lofstad, R., & Staab, E. (2004, September). Higher education accreditation in the United States: what international education professionals need to know. Paper presented at the Seventh EAIE Conference, Torino, Italy. Abstract retrieved from http://www.eaie.org/pdf/torino/205.pdf

McIntyre, J. (2005). Business management education in transition and developing countries. Armonk, NY: ME Sharpe.

Wellman, J. (1998). Recognition of accreditation organizations: a comparison of policy & practice of voluntary accreditation and the United States department of education [White paper]. Retrieved from http://www.chea.org/pdf/RecognitionWellman_Jan1998.pdf

U.S. Department of Education. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/