For the past five months I had the privilege of working on a volunteer consulting assignment for the Epic Theatre Ensemble through a placement made by the New York-based Taproot Foundation. Taproot organizes teams of experienced professionals to work with non-profits,including arts organizations, in Chicago, New York, Los Angeles and Washington D.C. Taproot set up our team to help Epic with board recruitment and development.
I enjoyed working with Epic, not only because of the people, but because of their contributions to arts education in New York City public schools. Melissa Friedman, a co-founder, actor and teaching artist leads Epic's initiatives in arts education. In 2009, Epic's after-school Shakespeare Remix was one of fifteen after-school programs in the country to receive a Coming Up Taller Award presented by First Lady Michelle Obama on behalf of the President's Committee on the Arts and Humanities.
As our Taproot project came to an end I asked Melissa about the concept of teaching artists and the future for arts education in New York City.
What is the difference between a teaching artist and a drama teacher?
A teaching artist uses theatre to explore issues or questions throughout a curriculum so that the arts may be used to reach out to all students. For example, history and literature can be explored through theatre.
A teaching artist and a drama teacher have different responsibilities. Drama teachers are either 'artsy' or 'taskmasters' while teaching artists try to maintain a balance between teaching and rigor. You have to find artists who are willing to bridge both worlds. Teaching artists also challenge their students to take risks. Teaching artists expect a lot of their students but they also love and care for them
How does a teaching artist work with the school where s/he is assigned?
The assignment partly depends on the school's priorities and requirements. Chelsea High, for example, is not an arts school, but every student takes drama in the 10th and 12th grade. There we will work with the drama teacher and an assistant principal. At Urban Academy, an arts school, we work with a Partnership Coordinator .
Have many of your students gone into careers in the theatre?
Epic is still a young company. We're going into our tenth year. In 2001 we started with ninth graders, and in 2005 our first classes graduated. While several students have gone on to pursue careers in theatre, that is not our goal, nor is it a measure of success. We are more interested in the skills that theatre builds in students. We have former students in college,in the air force, and even pursuing careers as teaching artists.
What are some of your concerns about arts education in New York City?
Public policies should reflect that the goals of theatre education should be more central to all education. The question now is: are schools working? Test scores are only one way to know. Creative problem solving questions often come up in job interviews, and theatre education helps form a basis for creative problem solving.
I have a four year-old son, and I can say, from looking at schools that parents do not want to lose the arts; children become more engaged in the lower grades. The Obama Administration seems to understand the importance of the arts to education. The arts are not likely to disappear from New York City schools; the city is the arts center of the world.
Monday, June 27, 2011
Monday, May 23, 2011
Barack Obama is a pretty smart guy
One of Donald Trump's biggest blunders was questioning President Obama's educational credentials, and I don't understand why he did it.
President Obama attended Occidental College in Los Angeles for two years. Long considered one of the leading liberal arts colleges in the country, Occidental has approximately 1900 students. In 2009, enrollment spiked to nearly 2,000. Occidental, or Oxy as it is called, was one of the first colleges in the West to have a Phi Beta Kappa chapter. The 25-75 SAT range is between 1200 and 1380, according to the U.S. News Guide.
Even if the SATs needed to get into Oxy in 1979, when the future president started college, were 100 points lower than they are today--not an unusual trend with all selective schools--it was still an extremely competitive school.
Trump made hay that Obama transferred to Columbia as the result of an affirmative action program. If so, the program must not have had many students.
Columbia College, the undergraduate division of Columbia University in New York, has approximately 4,200 students. The enrollment has not grown very much over the past thirty years though the college has also become co-educational. It admitted only men while sister school Barnard, still in operation, enrolled all of the women.
However, most of the 1,400 students who make up a freshman class at Columbia stay at Columbia, and there are few spots for transfer students. According to the university Web site:
We typically admit fewer than 10 percent of those who apply for transfer admission each year. Though the number varies from year to year, in recent years, we have admitted roughly 150 transfers from over 2,200 applicants.
That's not great odds for any applicant from anyplace. Barack Obama might have been given some consideration on the grounds of diversity, being from Hawaii and of mixed heritage. But he would have still needed excellent grades in high school as well as college. According to Columbia's site:
High school grades, rigor of program and standardized test scores are all important in the evaluation of transfer credentials, especially for students applying for sophomore standing.
I seriously doubt that Columbia's standards in 1981, when Obama transferred, were lower than they are today.
It's very funny that these critical comments about the president's education came from a man who also transferred to an Ivy League school. While The Donald proudly calls himself a Wharton graduate, he spent his first two years of college at Fordham in New York. I wonder what he would say if Fordham claimed him as an alumnus. Or if he'd sue.
President Obama attended Occidental College in Los Angeles for two years. Long considered one of the leading liberal arts colleges in the country, Occidental has approximately 1900 students. In 2009, enrollment spiked to nearly 2,000. Occidental, or Oxy as it is called, was one of the first colleges in the West to have a Phi Beta Kappa chapter. The 25-75 SAT range is between 1200 and 1380, according to the U.S. News Guide.
Even if the SATs needed to get into Oxy in 1979, when the future president started college, were 100 points lower than they are today--not an unusual trend with all selective schools--it was still an extremely competitive school.
Trump made hay that Obama transferred to Columbia as the result of an affirmative action program. If so, the program must not have had many students.
Columbia College, the undergraduate division of Columbia University in New York, has approximately 4,200 students. The enrollment has not grown very much over the past thirty years though the college has also become co-educational. It admitted only men while sister school Barnard, still in operation, enrolled all of the women.
However, most of the 1,400 students who make up a freshman class at Columbia stay at Columbia, and there are few spots for transfer students. According to the university Web site:
We typically admit fewer than 10 percent of those who apply for transfer admission each year. Though the number varies from year to year, in recent years, we have admitted roughly 150 transfers from over 2,200 applicants.
That's not great odds for any applicant from anyplace. Barack Obama might have been given some consideration on the grounds of diversity, being from Hawaii and of mixed heritage. But he would have still needed excellent grades in high school as well as college. According to Columbia's site:
High school grades, rigor of program and standardized test scores are all important in the evaluation of transfer credentials, especially for students applying for sophomore standing.
I seriously doubt that Columbia's standards in 1981, when Obama transferred, were lower than they are today.
It's very funny that these critical comments about the president's education came from a man who also transferred to an Ivy League school. While The Donald proudly calls himself a Wharton graduate, he spent his first two years of college at Fordham in New York. I wonder what he would say if Fordham claimed him as an alumnus. Or if he'd sue.
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
Book Review--The Geeks Shall Inherit the Earth: Popularity, Quirk Theory, and Why Outsiders Thrive After High School by Alexandra Robbins
As I read this book, I saw myself in high school. I never really fit into any of these stereotypes. I wasn't smart enough to be a Nerd, nor was I talented at gaming or music. I spent a lot of time by myself through half of high school, though I also achieved "civil" relations with most of the groups by the later half of my sophomore year. By civil, I mean that people who found it fun to bother me in grade school no longer had the time or inclination to bother me as our class moved closer towards graduation. Everyone had to take care of themselves.
But in this book, the stereotypes seemed to linger longer and they remain tied to a person well into their senior year. The author has students, including The Gamer, The Nerd and The Band Geek, all worried about getting through their senior year, all praying that they would get into colleges where they could leave the stereotypes behind and start over.
I'm not sure if the Millenials, subjects in this book, are longer-lasting victims of bullying due mainly to the Internet and the new forms of public expression it started. While the Internet, especially through Facebook, allows high school students to organize "hate" campaigns against classmates, it also helps the bullied find friends outside of school. Gossip has always been a part of high school life. Technology has always taken it beyond the school day, only the technology of the past was the telephone that parents paid for.
Also interesting were the sections about teachers and their cliques, which are little different than those of their students. A teacher who is a non-conformist is shunned, just like a student who is a non-conformist, too. Only the teachers have to keep that information to themselves. A teacher who is unpopular with students and colleagues has to hide a lot of hurt, while a teacher who is popular with students, but unpopular with colleagues is branded a trouble-maker or viewed with cynicism. It makes you wonder how many teachers know how to be effective in a school setting.
This is one book I hope parents of high school age children read no matter if their son or daughter is bothered by bullies in school. It is the first book that makes sense of the reasons why seven types of people: The Loner, The Popular Bitch, The Nerd, The New Girl, The Gamer, The Wierd Girl and The Band Geek all have a difficult time in high school and the coping mechanisms they have developed with the help of the author or others. It might keep other high school students from learning too late.
Monday, May 16, 2011
And a follow-up, charters and their future in New Jersey's cities. Takeovers not out of the question.
As follow-up to the last post, I'd like to touch on charters in the cities versus the suburbs. During last week's panel comments were made that charter schools have been set-up to be, in part, agents of educational innovation in areas of educational need. In other words, lets test an idea on a small set of students before we roll it out on an entire school.
The more effective charter schools start small, usually with one grade in the first year, partly because they have limited funds and also because they need the opportunity to be sure of the capabilities as well as the collegiality of their teachers and administrators. An effective school grows an effective faculty, and an effective faculty allows the school to advance and welcome new students.
However, I am concerned about a practice that has happened outside my home state of New Jersey in cities such as Detroit and Los Angeles, which is to ask charter operators, among others, to "take over" existing schools from the public school district. This politicians may claim that they lowered educational costs, managed change, provided for better schools and rid citizens of bureaucratic waste.
One book: Stray Dogs, Saints and Saviors by journalist Alexander Russo helps to show what happens when a district, in this case Los Angeles Unified, transfers ownership of a public school to a charter operator, in this case Green Dot schools. Green Dot operates schools in multiple states, including most recently New York Coty, where its teachers will work under a union contract.
In the case of the school in this book, Locke High, Green Dot managed a transition from the old faculty to the new. Older students were taught by faculty that had been there before the transition while entering students were taught under the Green Dot Way. As the older classes graduated, a new ninth grade. New teachers would come into the school, though some of the faculty on-site would be asked to stay.
Russo tried to show that a transition like this could not be abrupt when it affects the same students. Locke was to be a charter school, but not a charter where students had to enter a lottery. This was the local school and the union and school system administration viewed the new operator with cynicism. This also happened system-wide when private firms tried to run schools in Hartford and Philadelphia, and failed.
My concern is that Newark, with the pledged $100 million from Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, as well as the additional $43 million raised by Mayor Cory Booker, might be swayed in this direction while Chris Christie remains governor and while the state remains in control of the school system.
Such an aggressive act would be popular with suburban voters, not to mention Newarkers and their supporters who have supposedly asked the administration for any choice that would replace the existing schools and state control. Christie has already pushed for vouchers as one means of choice, though the existing public, private and parochial that are in a position to accommodate new students under the state's proposed tuition rates can take too few of them.
In addition to advocating vouchers, this governor keeps insisting that charter schools are better than the traditional public schools. So does the mayor. Both have little time to show results while neither cares about concensus and both want to lower costs. A push for takeovers fits well within such politics. But it may not lead to the overnight changes that parents want for their children.
The more effective charter schools start small, usually with one grade in the first year, partly because they have limited funds and also because they need the opportunity to be sure of the capabilities as well as the collegiality of their teachers and administrators. An effective school grows an effective faculty, and an effective faculty allows the school to advance and welcome new students.
However, I am concerned about a practice that has happened outside my home state of New Jersey in cities such as Detroit and Los Angeles, which is to ask charter operators, among others, to "take over" existing schools from the public school district. This politicians may claim that they lowered educational costs, managed change, provided for better schools and rid citizens of bureaucratic waste.
One book: Stray Dogs, Saints and Saviors by journalist Alexander Russo helps to show what happens when a district, in this case Los Angeles Unified, transfers ownership of a public school to a charter operator, in this case Green Dot schools. Green Dot operates schools in multiple states, including most recently New York Coty, where its teachers will work under a union contract.
In the case of the school in this book, Locke High, Green Dot managed a transition from the old faculty to the new. Older students were taught by faculty that had been there before the transition while entering students were taught under the Green Dot Way. As the older classes graduated, a new ninth grade. New teachers would come into the school, though some of the faculty on-site would be asked to stay.
Russo tried to show that a transition like this could not be abrupt when it affects the same students. Locke was to be a charter school, but not a charter where students had to enter a lottery. This was the local school and the union and school system administration viewed the new operator with cynicism. This also happened system-wide when private firms tried to run schools in Hartford and Philadelphia, and failed.
My concern is that Newark, with the pledged $100 million from Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, as well as the additional $43 million raised by Mayor Cory Booker, might be swayed in this direction while Chris Christie remains governor and while the state remains in control of the school system.
Such an aggressive act would be popular with suburban voters, not to mention Newarkers and their supporters who have supposedly asked the administration for any choice that would replace the existing schools and state control. Christie has already pushed for vouchers as one means of choice, though the existing public, private and parochial that are in a position to accommodate new students under the state's proposed tuition rates can take too few of them.
In addition to advocating vouchers, this governor keeps insisting that charter schools are better than the traditional public schools. So does the mayor. Both have little time to show results while neither cares about concensus and both want to lower costs. A push for takeovers fits well within such politics. But it may not lead to the overnight changes that parents want for their children.
Public participation and transparency, but not local votes, are necessary to authorize new suburban New Jersey charter schools
Last week I attended a conference on charter schools sponsored by NJ Spotlight. While I have followed charter school issues in the state for a couple of years, the event was an eye-opener. It was a discussion along the lines of: "Now that we have had charter schools for more than ten years, how do we make sure we manage them right, in terms of authorising new schools, providing sufficient funding and managing enrollment?"
Acting Education Commissioner Christopher Cerf was one of the panelists. As the first speaker he took it upon himself to say that charter schools are public schools, and that charters are not always "the solution." He also added that children go to schools, not school districts. Then he was challenged when he said that Newark's approved charter schools were out-performing the traditional public schools by a wide margin.
Unfortunately, the panel format did not give Cerf enough time to present further evidence. However, continued challenges, including quantifiable ones, could have turned into the main part of the event. Thankfully, they didn't, for the issues around charters go beyond Newark.
New Jersey, as I've written many times, is a "home rule" state. Politics is local, and local politics in the 'burbs, as well as the larger cities, can be brutal. Yet, the state's association of school boards has called for local approval as part of the authorization process for charters.
This is aupposed to mean that the approval process would center on: will this new school fill a local or regional need that existing public schools are unable to fill? However, the battle is likely to shift to "adult issues" in the suburbs: why remove students--and funding--from the good schools we already have? Not to mention why remove good students and put our school's ratings at risk?
Lets consider situations where parents across a single suburban district or more than one may wish to see a charter school, instead of paying tuition for a private school
+ Advanced academic academies or "magnet" schools. There would need to be a process where parents prove that there is a demand, and demonstrate that they do not have the income to pay private school tuition. They also need to play a hand in finding the right teachers and administrators. If there is local approval, the battle becomes "my kids versus your's."
+ Language immersion schools. Here one battle becomes reinforcement of ethnic identity versus voluntary segregation by ethnicity, even if the school does not discriminate in enrollment. Would advocates of the enthnicity that would benefit from the school be, in effect, asking for "their own school?" Intentions can always be tested under law. A second battle comes over cost. Which is less expensive? Add new teachers paid under a union-negotiated contract to teach language and ethnic studies, possibly at the expense of other academic programs. Or, allow a charter school, where teachers are not under contract, and the school pays rent to the district, to provide such instruction?
+ Special needs schools. There are cost considerations, but also issues of educational philosophy. Should students in of certain special needs, for example, autism, be given their own school where they may be instructed by specialized teachers? For me, this is the area where I have the least objection to charter schools, and where I believe fiscal equity with traditional schools is most important.
In all of these cases it is not certain that the expertise lies within every voting school district to make a decision on a charter school application.
However, a neutral body--educators based at publicly supported colleges of education has been suggested--needs to be capable of managing public participation in the debate over the need for a new school. Evidence: demographics, available space, budgets, staffing must be transparent for the public as well as the panel of experts and the state's Department of Education.
Parents may not always be educational experts, but the thoughtful ones do not want to be left out of the process. Neither do the adversarial ones. The decisions of a state-appointed panel that go against the grain would be exceptionally difficult to overturn, and political rifts would be very difficult to mend. Locals resent a "solution" being "forced" upon them by a state. Such resentments would be worse with no public participation and no transparency.
Acting Education Commissioner Christopher Cerf was one of the panelists. As the first speaker he took it upon himself to say that charter schools are public schools, and that charters are not always "the solution." He also added that children go to schools, not school districts. Then he was challenged when he said that Newark's approved charter schools were out-performing the traditional public schools by a wide margin.
Unfortunately, the panel format did not give Cerf enough time to present further evidence. However, continued challenges, including quantifiable ones, could have turned into the main part of the event. Thankfully, they didn't, for the issues around charters go beyond Newark.
New Jersey, as I've written many times, is a "home rule" state. Politics is local, and local politics in the 'burbs, as well as the larger cities, can be brutal. Yet, the state's association of school boards has called for local approval as part of the authorization process for charters.
This is aupposed to mean that the approval process would center on: will this new school fill a local or regional need that existing public schools are unable to fill? However, the battle is likely to shift to "adult issues" in the suburbs: why remove students--and funding--from the good schools we already have? Not to mention why remove good students and put our school's ratings at risk?
Lets consider situations where parents across a single suburban district or more than one may wish to see a charter school, instead of paying tuition for a private school
+ Advanced academic academies or "magnet" schools. There would need to be a process where parents prove that there is a demand, and demonstrate that they do not have the income to pay private school tuition. They also need to play a hand in finding the right teachers and administrators. If there is local approval, the battle becomes "my kids versus your's."
+ Language immersion schools. Here one battle becomes reinforcement of ethnic identity versus voluntary segregation by ethnicity, even if the school does not discriminate in enrollment. Would advocates of the enthnicity that would benefit from the school be, in effect, asking for "their own school?" Intentions can always be tested under law. A second battle comes over cost. Which is less expensive? Add new teachers paid under a union-negotiated contract to teach language and ethnic studies, possibly at the expense of other academic programs. Or, allow a charter school, where teachers are not under contract, and the school pays rent to the district, to provide such instruction?
+ Special needs schools. There are cost considerations, but also issues of educational philosophy. Should students in of certain special needs, for example, autism, be given their own school where they may be instructed by specialized teachers? For me, this is the area where I have the least objection to charter schools, and where I believe fiscal equity with traditional schools is most important.
In all of these cases it is not certain that the expertise lies within every voting school district to make a decision on a charter school application.
However, a neutral body--educators based at publicly supported colleges of education has been suggested--needs to be capable of managing public participation in the debate over the need for a new school. Evidence: demographics, available space, budgets, staffing must be transparent for the public as well as the panel of experts and the state's Department of Education.
Parents may not always be educational experts, but the thoughtful ones do not want to be left out of the process. Neither do the adversarial ones. The decisions of a state-appointed panel that go against the grain would be exceptionally difficult to overturn, and political rifts would be very difficult to mend. Locals resent a "solution" being "forced" upon them by a state. Such resentments would be worse with no public participation and no transparency.
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Colorado State University's admissions and financial aid strategy aggressively targets disadvantaged residents and out-of-state students
Today's Chronicle of Higher Education has an interesting story about changes in admissions practices at five colleges, including Colorado State, a large state university with approximately 20,000 full-time undergraduates.
According to the latest U.S. News Guide, sixteen percent of Colorado State's undergraduate student body comes from out-of-state. According to the Chronicle story, this percentage has risen with successive freshman classes; the most recent class was 21 percent non-residents.
While each non-resident student pays more for their space in the class, their enrollment takes spaces away from resident students who might have been admitted to the university a short time ago.
Colorado State charged in-state students approximately $7,000 for this past school year,including campus fees. This will increase by at least $1,000 for the 2011-12 academic year, according to the Chronicle story. However, resident students who come from families hat earn incomes of $55,000 or less will pay only around $4,000 for tuition.
The story mentions nothing about an increase in out-of-state tuition, which is approximately $23,000. This was an increase of slightly less than $1,000 from the previous year, according to U.S. News and the university Website.
This year, there were approximately 7,300 applications for an estimated 900 spots for non-resident students in the freshman class. Last year, using data from U.S. News and the school's Web site, Colorado State's yield rate--the share of accepted students who choose to go--was 41 percent, so the school would admit approximately 3,600 of these applicants, maybe more, maybe less, depending on the scholarships awarded.
According to the Chronicle story, out-of-state applicants may receive grants that range from $3,000 through $9,000 depending on their academic records and how well they maintain their grades. The university is also a member of the Western Undergraduate Exchange. Out-of-state freshman who reside in any one of 14 states who major in one of 63 subjects at Colorado State pay 150 percent of in-state tuition. This reduces their tuition and fees to an estimated $12,000 for the coming academic year. This is an $11,000 discount from the out-of-state charges--almost half-off the sticker price.
For out-of-staters, the better student starts out with a financial advantage and possibly an academic one as well. The university has an Honors Program that admitted approximately 350 freshman last year. More money and special treatment can't hurt in bringing better students to campus.
As I read these numbers I see that Colorado State is becoming an academic bargain for disadvantaged students as well as out-of-state students if they qualify for scholarships. Not to mention, the school has not been impossible to get into. According to the U.S. News Guide, Colorado State accepted 72 percent of all applicants.
Last year, this school attracted a record freshman class with nearly 4,500 students so the aspects of this strategy: out-of-state enrollment increases, scholarship programs and the Honors Program, among others, must be working. This year's class likely comes from a larger applicant pool as tuition and fees have become more competitive while the scholarship programs have become more ambitious.
In an ideal state, a state university would be the near-exclusive province of in-state students who would face an exceptionally competitive admissions process, but would pay an exceptionally minimal fee for their education, a fee low enough to avoid major debt. Obviously, those days are gone in many states, Colorado certainly being one of them. But so far, Colorado State's admissions strategy is working in terms of bringing new freshmen through the front gate while helping the school make-up for lost revenues from state budget cuts.
However, one critical question cannot be answered until the members of the freshman classes of 2010 and 2010 get closer to graduation: If we got a larger and better qualified student body, did our graduation and retention rates go up?
The U.S. News Guide reported that 82 percent of Colorado State freshmen, on average from 2005 through 2008, continued on to their sophomore year. The same source also reported that 64 percent of the students who entered Colorado State in 2003 had graduated by 2009. The numbers are quite close to those of a sister school, the University of Colorado-Boulder (84 and 67 percent), but higher-rated state schools have freshman retention rates that are better than 90 percent and graduate more than three-quarters of their students within six years.
If the various scholarship programs lead to a highly qualified and highly satisfied student body, then Colorado State has developed a model that other state schools may use to raise revenues while getting better students.
The administrations of state schools with exceptionally low percentages of out-of-state students--the University of California system and Rutgers-New Brunswick are two prominent examples--will be following Colorado State's efforts closely. If Colorado State succeeds, other schools will follow with similar strategies. In-state students will be less likely to take their state schools for granted.
According to the latest U.S. News Guide, sixteen percent of Colorado State's undergraduate student body comes from out-of-state. According to the Chronicle story, this percentage has risen with successive freshman classes; the most recent class was 21 percent non-residents.
While each non-resident student pays more for their space in the class, their enrollment takes spaces away from resident students who might have been admitted to the university a short time ago.
Colorado State charged in-state students approximately $7,000 for this past school year,including campus fees. This will increase by at least $1,000 for the 2011-12 academic year, according to the Chronicle story. However, resident students who come from families hat earn incomes of $55,000 or less will pay only around $4,000 for tuition.
The story mentions nothing about an increase in out-of-state tuition, which is approximately $23,000. This was an increase of slightly less than $1,000 from the previous year, according to U.S. News and the university Website.
This year, there were approximately 7,300 applications for an estimated 900 spots for non-resident students in the freshman class. Last year, using data from U.S. News and the school's Web site, Colorado State's yield rate--the share of accepted students who choose to go--was 41 percent, so the school would admit approximately 3,600 of these applicants, maybe more, maybe less, depending on the scholarships awarded.
According to the Chronicle story, out-of-state applicants may receive grants that range from $3,000 through $9,000 depending on their academic records and how well they maintain their grades. The university is also a member of the Western Undergraduate Exchange. Out-of-state freshman who reside in any one of 14 states who major in one of 63 subjects at Colorado State pay 150 percent of in-state tuition. This reduces their tuition and fees to an estimated $12,000 for the coming academic year. This is an $11,000 discount from the out-of-state charges--almost half-off the sticker price.
For out-of-staters, the better student starts out with a financial advantage and possibly an academic one as well. The university has an Honors Program that admitted approximately 350 freshman last year. More money and special treatment can't hurt in bringing better students to campus.
As I read these numbers I see that Colorado State is becoming an academic bargain for disadvantaged students as well as out-of-state students if they qualify for scholarships. Not to mention, the school has not been impossible to get into. According to the U.S. News Guide, Colorado State accepted 72 percent of all applicants.
Last year, this school attracted a record freshman class with nearly 4,500 students so the aspects of this strategy: out-of-state enrollment increases, scholarship programs and the Honors Program, among others, must be working. This year's class likely comes from a larger applicant pool as tuition and fees have become more competitive while the scholarship programs have become more ambitious.
In an ideal state, a state university would be the near-exclusive province of in-state students who would face an exceptionally competitive admissions process, but would pay an exceptionally minimal fee for their education, a fee low enough to avoid major debt. Obviously, those days are gone in many states, Colorado certainly being one of them. But so far, Colorado State's admissions strategy is working in terms of bringing new freshmen through the front gate while helping the school make-up for lost revenues from state budget cuts.
However, one critical question cannot be answered until the members of the freshman classes of 2010 and 2010 get closer to graduation: If we got a larger and better qualified student body, did our graduation and retention rates go up?
The U.S. News Guide reported that 82 percent of Colorado State freshmen, on average from 2005 through 2008, continued on to their sophomore year. The same source also reported that 64 percent of the students who entered Colorado State in 2003 had graduated by 2009. The numbers are quite close to those of a sister school, the University of Colorado-Boulder (84 and 67 percent), but higher-rated state schools have freshman retention rates that are better than 90 percent and graduate more than three-quarters of their students within six years.
If the various scholarship programs lead to a highly qualified and highly satisfied student body, then Colorado State has developed a model that other state schools may use to raise revenues while getting better students.
The administrations of state schools with exceptionally low percentages of out-of-state students--the University of California system and Rutgers-New Brunswick are two prominent examples--will be following Colorado State's efforts closely. If Colorado State succeeds, other schools will follow with similar strategies. In-state students will be less likely to take their state schools for granted.
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Why are southern states celebrating the house divided?
This morning's USA Today ran a story: Confederate group fights for state specialty plates. The story is partly about the efforts of a non-profit organization, the Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV), to market Confederate-inspired license plates through state divisions of motor vehicles.
According to the story, SCV has succeeded in marketing these plates in nine states: Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi,North Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia. A Florida program was ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge because it gave "unfettered direction to engage in viewpoint discrimination. The state legislature there has not made a decision to rework their statutes to allow the plates. The Texas Department of Motor Vehicles Board did not approve a Confederate-inspired plate, though the SCV has grounds to appeal the decision; only eight of the nine board members were present. The SCV's Kentucky office wants to collect all monies towards Confederate-inspired plates in advance of production, as the state permitted the sponsor of a Lincoln Bicentennial plate to do four years ago.
I grew up in New Jersey and admittedly I have never lived in a state that was once a member of the Confederacy. Aside from the obvious issues that led the nation into civil war--secession and slavery--it bothers me when people want to celebrate a nation that was a house divided, especially now, during very difficult economic times. It bothers me more when a group asks state governments to be a complicit partner in the celebration.
I am not a lawyer, but I believe that there is a difference between private speech and government-sponsored speech. If the SCV sold license plate frames or produced front bumper plates to be sold in states where a front bumper plate is not mandated then there is nothing a citizen could do to stop them. This is protected speech. It may offend many, but still it is privately funded.
But in this case the states are seceeding, not from the nation, but in their endorsement of the Confederacy by allowing their motor vehicle offices to manufacture and help market the plates, especially in states that have a large African American population.
According to the recent U.S. Census, there are slightly more than 39 million African Americans living in the country. Of this total, more than 14.1 million reside in the nine states that have permitted the issuance of these plates.
The additions of Florida, Kentucky and Texas would permit the marketing of these plates into three states with a total of 6.1 million African American residents. These plates would thus be sold in the states where the majority of African Americans live. Equally significant: Florida and Texas have the second and fourth-largest African-American populations in the country.
I also find it interesting that, with the exception of Maryland and North Carolina, these states are led by Republican governors. I wonder what history books those governors have been reading. In the early years of Reconstruction free blacks helped bring the Republican Party into power in the South; it was the Democrats who took a more conservative view on civil rights and voting rights for nearly a century.
Supporters of the Confederate plates say that their intention is to honor the service of military veterans who served the Confederate cause. While it is not fair to make inferences, I have to ask if these same people also want to honor the rights those men fought for. I leave it to them to answer that question.
In the meantime I would hope that no more state governments join in to celebrate an era of a house divided, an indentured class, and a lost cause by permitting the manufacture, sales and issuance of these plates.
According to the story, SCV has succeeded in marketing these plates in nine states: Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi,North Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia. A Florida program was ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge because it gave "unfettered direction to engage in viewpoint discrimination. The state legislature there has not made a decision to rework their statutes to allow the plates. The Texas Department of Motor Vehicles Board did not approve a Confederate-inspired plate, though the SCV has grounds to appeal the decision; only eight of the nine board members were present. The SCV's Kentucky office wants to collect all monies towards Confederate-inspired plates in advance of production, as the state permitted the sponsor of a Lincoln Bicentennial plate to do four years ago.
I grew up in New Jersey and admittedly I have never lived in a state that was once a member of the Confederacy. Aside from the obvious issues that led the nation into civil war--secession and slavery--it bothers me when people want to celebrate a nation that was a house divided, especially now, during very difficult economic times. It bothers me more when a group asks state governments to be a complicit partner in the celebration.
I am not a lawyer, but I believe that there is a difference between private speech and government-sponsored speech. If the SCV sold license plate frames or produced front bumper plates to be sold in states where a front bumper plate is not mandated then there is nothing a citizen could do to stop them. This is protected speech. It may offend many, but still it is privately funded.
But in this case the states are seceeding, not from the nation, but in their endorsement of the Confederacy by allowing their motor vehicle offices to manufacture and help market the plates, especially in states that have a large African American population.
According to the recent U.S. Census, there are slightly more than 39 million African Americans living in the country. Of this total, more than 14.1 million reside in the nine states that have permitted the issuance of these plates.
The additions of Florida, Kentucky and Texas would permit the marketing of these plates into three states with a total of 6.1 million African American residents. These plates would thus be sold in the states where the majority of African Americans live. Equally significant: Florida and Texas have the second and fourth-largest African-American populations in the country.
I also find it interesting that, with the exception of Maryland and North Carolina, these states are led by Republican governors. I wonder what history books those governors have been reading. In the early years of Reconstruction free blacks helped bring the Republican Party into power in the South; it was the Democrats who took a more conservative view on civil rights and voting rights for nearly a century.
Supporters of the Confederate plates say that their intention is to honor the service of military veterans who served the Confederate cause. While it is not fair to make inferences, I have to ask if these same people also want to honor the rights those men fought for. I leave it to them to answer that question.
In the meantime I would hope that no more state governments join in to celebrate an era of a house divided, an indentured class, and a lost cause by permitting the manufacture, sales and issuance of these plates.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)