Analytical Inquiry

Published on February 2017 | Categories: Documents | Downloads: 28 | Comments: 0 | Views: 266
of 11
Download PDF   Embed   Report

Comments

Content

Running head: ANALYSIS OF OBAMA ADMINISTRATION AGENDA

1

Analysis of Obama Administration Agenda for Higher Education Katherine Glesser Loyola University Chicago

ANALYSIS OF OBAMA ADMINISTRATION AGENDA Abstract This paper details the Obama administration’s agenda to reform higher education. Through discussion of affordability, competition among institutions, and responsibility at the state and individual level, the Obama administration suggests that higher education can become more accessible to all students. I examine the plan using a three-level that approach that addresses an overview of the policy frame, discussion of policy indicators involved, and suggestions for future research to support the overall plan. I argue that although the plan

2

provides a new and comprehensive approach to accessibility in higher education, there are still a number of areas for improvement within the plan.

ANALYSIS OF OBAMA ADMINISTRATION AGENDA Introduction The Obama administration’s plan for higher education reform focuses on three main

3

areas of change, including delegation of responsibilities among state governments and individual students, competition among institutions, and making a college education affordable for all (The White House, 2013). As the St. John, Daun-Barnett, and Moronski-Chapman (2013) text indicates, this plan is indicative of a number of political ideologies and frameworks, which proves it to be more effective in addressing the current issues in higher education. As St. John et al. stated, “Markets . . . can also be part of the solution if the appropriate mechanisms—and necessary funding—are put into place to promote greater awareness.” This level of awareness, though happening slowly, will help to shape higher education policy in the future. There are two parts of educational opportunity that will garner agreement out of the majority of Americans (St. John et al., 2013). The first is access to a quality K-12 education, and the second is equal opportunity to a college education (St. John et al., 2013). In attempt to provide the opportunity for a meaningful, affordable, and quality educational experience for all individuals, President Obama has presented his plan for higher education reform. In the next several pages, I will attempt to broadly examine the president’s agenda, while offering positive and constructive feedback from a variety of sources found within the higher education community. The theory of the plan, to promote affordability for middle-class students, while heightening competition among institutions to provide a high-quality, low-cost education, is a positive and needed change. But as I will point out, there are a number of sources to support the idea that this plan still has many details to work out before it will be effective.

ANALYSIS OF OBAMA ADMINISTRATION AGENDA Level 1: Policy Frame The Obama plan for higher education provides a number of characteristics within the liberal and neoliberal frameworks. In general, the framework focuses on three areas of

4

improvement in higher education: delegation of responsibilities, competition among institutions, and making a college education affordable for all students (The White House, 2013). Within each of these subcategories, there are more specific details provided to assist in enacting the plan. First, within the delegation of responsibilities, both the state governments and individual students will be held accountable for certain aspects of the educational system. State governments are to be put in charge of delegating funding to institutions that meet performance standards, while students who receive financial aid will be asked to take responsibility for their degree completion. This decentralization of responsibility is conservative in nature, focusing on placing responsibility in the hands of many, instead of one, all-powerful source (St. John et al., 2013). Though the general plan focuses on a liberal approach to higher education in that everyone has an equal chance to attend, pay for, and complete college, the conservative aspect of the division of powers remains. Another aspect of the Obama agenda is to promote competition among colleges to promote affordable and high-quality education (The White House, 2013). The competitive nature of this agenda item is meant to increase the efficiency of institutions in serving students. In doing this, there are a number of issues that have not yet been addressed. However, the general idea of competition among institutions is to provide transparency for consumers and provide an overall better and more affordable service to students. Again, while the end goal for this standard of competition is positive for marginalized students, the idea of financially

ANALYSIS OF OBAMA ADMINISTRATION AGENDA recognizing institutions with high graduation rates and low tuition prices doesn’t make sense in the interim for serving this type of student population. Dorn (2013) cited Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) as a prime example of a case in which it does not make sense to only provide financial support to institutions with high graduation rates. According to Dorn (2013), many HBCUs do not always boast high graduation rates among students. Regardless, HBCUs provide racially marginalized students with the opportunity to attend an

5

institution that better prepares them for their future endeavors. A large majority of Black leaders in the United States graduated from an HBCU. So, although graduation rates at individual institutions may not show it, HBCUs ultimately serve the public good and are thus, worth being funded by taxpayer dollars. Beyond failing to encompass all institution types and outcomes in this dualistic plan, Gross (2013) also points out the clear advantage elite institutions have over the others. Elite institutions are able to produce high graduate rates because they only admit the best students. This does not mean that the institution is assisting these students through their transition to college and the four to six years of their degree program. Rather, the students who were admitted to these institutions were more likely to succeed anyway. Therefore, why should elite institutions receive funding for high graduation rates if they are not helping to graduate all types of students from their institution? According to Jaschik (2013), “fifty-two percent of presidents agree or strongly agree that wealthier institutions will fare best under the Obama ratings.” This makes sense because of the understanding that wealthy institutions attract the most prepared students, often of high socioeconomic status. In providing federal aid to these wealthy institutions that attract well-prepared students, are already underserved students becoming even more marginalized?

ANALYSIS OF OBAMA ADMINISTRATION AGENDA The final aspect of the agenda, making a college education affordable for all individuals is perhaps the most discussed topic in higher education today. The idea of providing flexible

6

options for student borrowers is neoliberal in nature because it values “individual rights over the social good” (St. John et al., 2013, p. 13). In providing students with options for loans and other financial aid, but not providing them with a cost-free opportunity to attend an institution of higher education, the neoliberalism aspect of the Obama agenda is demonstrated. In recognizing that this third aspect of the Obama agenda is likely the most valuable and feasible at this point, Bailey (2014) suggests we “tackle the real problem” and focus on the community college experience, particularly for higher-achieving students. By and large, highachieving, low-income students are much more likely to apply to less selective schools than high-achieving, middle-high income students (Bailey, 2014). The ability to transform the community college experience for this population of high-achieving, low-income students is arguably going to be one of the most beneficial aspects of the new Obama agenda. Level 2: Policy Indicator Policy indicators specify the ways in which the president’s plan can be measured and what factors in the plan indicate success (St. John et al., 2013). The first opportunity for quantitative measurement is in the proposed rating system of colleges and universities. Namely, the number of individuals who use the ratings, their demographic information, and the decisions they make about higher education as a result of the ratings. If a number of individuals used the government rating system to find their institution, this could mean the need for transparency for consumers that Obama discussed is being met. However, this indicator may prove to be difficult to assess. There is a qualitative aspect of a college education that is unable to be put into a ranking. Further, it would be difficult to assess the difference in experiences a student might

ANALYSIS OF OBAMA ADMINISTRATION AGENDA have at institutions that were chosen from the government ratings system versus institutions chosen independently. Heightened graduation rates will also serve as an indicator for success in this plan. Particularly for low-income and first generation students, the four and six year graduation rates have been unacceptable in terms of the number of students who begin a career at an institution,

7

and thus incur student loan debt, but do not graduate within the next six years. Another indicator of a positive policy would be a higher earning among graduates. Graduates who earn more than graduates in the same field from a different institution indicate the overall success of an institution. However, Bateman (2013) cautions against using these two goals as a policy indicator. This is because “ratings based on graduate earnings will encourage schools to minimize preparation for lower-paying but socially valuable professions like social work, ministry and preschool education,” while, “ratings based on graduation rates will encourage them to admit fewer students who might be less prepared for college, who graduate in lower numbers” (Bateman, 2013). If institutions fail to admit fewer students who are less prepared for college in order to increase their own rating, there is a high likelihood that low-income students, as well as first generation students and students of color will not benefit from this new ratings system. A final policy indicator is the affordability of a higher education for a majority of the population. Though affordability is relative based on a family’s income and the amount of wealth they have saved over the years, the overall hope is that a middle class family can afford to send their student to college without incurring thousands of dollars in student loan debt. If the Obama plan is effective, the vast majority of families will be able to send their students to college by paying what they can, while the remaining tuition and fees are supported by the ways

ANALYSIS OF OBAMA ADMINISTRATION AGENDA

8

in which Obama plans to reform higher education. An overall lower amount of student loan debt owed would equal success in this case. Level 3: Research Base Because this plan details a number of ideas on making higher education more accessible and affordable, there is a multiple of research to be done. First and foremost, I think it is most important to look at the president’s rating technique what comprises it. In an interview with the Washington Post’s Nick Anderson, University of California President Janet Napolitano stated that she is, “deeply skeptical” about the suggested rating system (2013). As Napolitano went on to discuss, institutions of higher education should definitely be held accountable for student success, but the ratings system may not be the best way to do it. For example, is there a way to quantitatively compare institutions of similar size and location, but vastly different missions? Further, research on the way students and their families would use the ratings system may be interesting insight into the intention of the ratings and their actual applied use. First generation students, in particular, may struggle to understand the purpose and value of a government rating. Research on first generation students, their families, and the way they might make sense of a government rating system could be helpful in the further analysis of this proposal. A second area for potential research might be the amount of debt students of particular majors carry and the average salary those same students make in the years after they graduate. I think it is important to understand both the amount of debt students have upon graduation, as well as the opportunities they have to pay the debt back. In some cases, it may be more efficient to make cuts from the beginning, thus asking students to pay lower tuition in exchange for less student services, but also in exchange for less debt. The other reason this information would helpful is to determine the feasibility of the Obama plan to cap student loan repayments at 10%

ANALYSIS OF OBAMA ADMINISTRATION AGENDA of an individual’s income. While this seems like a good idea in theory, research on the amount of money students make out of college would be helpful in determining if an individual institution would continue to survive with the limited funds for a period of time. By capping student loan repayments at 10% of income, this would likely result in some entity, either the

9

government, a loan company, university, being without that source of funding for a longer period of time. There are a number of other implications that could arise from the lack of student loan repayments. A final point of future research might begin to look at the extent to which students are capable of using external motivation techniques to increase the quality of their work. One aspect of the Obama plan, to hold students accountable for their academic success, seems like a better theory than plan. As Goldrich-Rab (2013) shared in her blog, research on first generation students demonstrates that this population does not know or understand how to raise their GPA. They have neither the knowledge nor the support of authority figures in understanding the way in which taking more or less courses of more or less credit hours affect the GPA. Furthermore, as Goldrich-Rab explained, this population of students is less likely to take advantage of the student services offered to them. This is not because these students are not interested or do not believe they can thrive without support. However, these students work more often, and they deal with substantially more family and personal issues than their peers who had parents or grandparents who attended college. How would this play out, then, if a student was threatened to lose their financial aid if they could not bring up their GPA? To me, it seems like this plan is hurting the students who the larger plan is supposed to help. Therefore further research on the capabilities and development levels of students, particularly first generation and low-income students, would

ANALYSIS OF OBAMA ADMINISTRATION AGENDA

10

be helpful in understanding if the Obama plan of holding students accountable for their academic success is a reasonable expectation. Conclusion Ultimately, the Obama agenda for higher education looks at ways to innovate and provide positive change to the higher education community. Through delegation of responsibilities among state governments and individual students, competition among institutions, and making a college education affordable for all, students who are marginalized in the current system will hopefully have an easier time choosing a quality, affordable institution, while having a manageable amount of student loan debt upon graduation (The White House, 2013). Though there are many issues with the proposed plan, the agenda starts to address some aspects that will be helpful for the majority of students as they choose a college and attempt to manage their tuition payments over their tenure at the institution. Most notably, the wealthier, more elite institutions will continue to benefit from this new plan, while the institutions serving lowincome, less-prepared students will continue to struggle to meet the government’s expectations in terms of graduation rates and high salaries for graduates. There is still much research to be done and many details to be discussed to ensure a positive and affordable college experience. However this plan starts to address the long-standing issues of higher education, namely, affordability and access for low-income, first generation students. Though not every aspect of the Obama plan seems feasible at this point, bits and pieces applied over the next several years will likely change our education system for the better.

ANALYSIS OF OBAMA ADMINISTRATION AGENDA References Anderson, N. (2013, December 6). Napolitano, University of California president “deeply skeptical” of Obama college rating plan. The Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com. Bailey, T. (2014, February 3). Tackle the real problem. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from http://www.insidehighered.com. Bateman, B. (2013, December 17). The wrong college ratings. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com. Dorn, S. (2013, September 3). Kick the reform habit. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from http://www.insidehighered.com.

11

Goldrich-Rab, S. (2013, September 21). Rethinking financial aid’s role in student retention [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://eduoptimists.blogspot.com. Gross, K. (2013, August 23). Obama’s rating system may be difficult to pull off. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from http://www.insidehighered.com. Jaschik, S. (2013, December 16). Dubious of Obama plan. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from http://www.insidehighered.com. St. John, E. P., Daun-Barnett, N., & Moronski-Chapman, K. M. (2013). Public policy and higher education: Reframing strategies for preparation, access, and college success. New York: Routledge. The White House. (2013). Fact sheet on the president’s plan to make college more affordable: A better bargain for the middle class. [Fact sheet]. Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov.

Sponsor Documents

Or use your account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Forgot your password?

Or register your new account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link to create a new password.

Back to log-in

Close