Posted on by Victoria Tsang · 5 Comments

W7 – Where is the U.S. in Education Policy Reform?

So as I read through this week’s readings and looked at the various charts outlining the different policies OECD countries have in place and the specific area it is targeting (whether it is funding or early childhood education, etc.), I noticed the lack of presence the U.S. had. This is not surprising since most policy reforms happen on the state level because that is how the U.S is structure. While there are national-level policy reforms in place, it is ultimately up to the states to decide how they interpret and implement these policies. In the Education Policy course I took last semester, we examined the various policy trends of the U.S. and the various opinions of both sides of the spectrum in what each side supports and believes. We discussed and learned about how policy in discussion can differ greatly from when it is actually passed and implemented (sometimes in a good way and sometimes in a not-so-good way). The various barriers to get through and government bodies to get buy-in from can partially explain why it is a long and arduous process to implement education policy reform in the U.S. and why it never seems to end up how policymakers first pictured it.

This is not the same many of the other OECD countries mentioned in the readings. In an Atlantic article, it mentioned that Asian countries, in particular, have a clear outline of when a student should know what topics in what subjects and have assessments and evaluations in place to ensure that the student reaches it. The article also mentions how the policies are formed with the idea that all students can be high-achievers and there are policies in place to make sure that if a student falls behind, they are intervened and provided extra help to keep things from getting to a point where things are irreparable. The article also points out that the U.S. typically expects less from certain groups of students of certain backgrounds, because the argument is that those particular students should not be put to the same standards as others. While I don’t think that schools should expect less from a student because of her/his background, I also don’t agree with how the U.S. implements the policy of same standards for everyone, which is probably why the Common Core and No Child Left Behind has received so much criticism.

The Atlantic article also mentions how the Asian countries discussed purposely allocated extra resources for students who need extra help and have programs in place to help students catch up to their peers, while this may be the case, but having taught in Hong Kong, the article seems to overpraise the programs in place. On the surface, the programs and policies seem to envision the ideal, but implementation and action again falls short. Although I do agree that the pay for teachers is definitely not affected by the location of the school in Hong Kong, which is not the case in the U.S. and causes an issue because it deters good teachers from going to schools with disadvantaged students, who need them the most, since those schools typically cannot offer the same pay rate as other schools.

Posted on by s.ahuja1 · 3 Comments

W7-OECD Report (Education Policy Reforms)

This week’s readings took a look at higher education reform and the state of higher education through two OECD reports:  (i) OECD Education Policy Outlook 2015 Making Reforms Happens; and (ii) The State of Higher Education 2014.  Both reports challenged us to not only view higher education through an internationalization lens as we have been doing so far, but also to look at educational systems in general in terms of where they are and where they need to go.  I thought this was a useful exercise because without a strong foundation of internal higher education systems and reform, cross-border partners and relationships cannot be developed and sustained in a productive manner.  Sound internal policy in home countries can then lead to sound policies as they relate to internationalization and global higher education policies.

The OECD 2015 report set forth trends in education policies through which effective ways to improve education systems can be achieved.  According to the OECD 2015 Report, education policy trends fall into the following categories:  (i) quality and equity; (ii) preparing students for the future; (iii) school improvement; governance; and funding.  Of interest to me were the second and third categories.  First, it is worth noting that policy reform in the area of tertiary education involved internationalization directly and policies in Australia, Finland and Japan were noted in the OECD 2015 Report (p.11).  For Japan, the way to improve tertiary education seems to largely rest on internationalization efforts as noted in the Report (see also http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20141120233337379).

I also found that in the school improvement category, there is robust policy reform activity around improving the quality of teachers and learning (see pp. 13-15).  As we have seen in earlier readings, quality of teaching is also an important facet to the forward movement of internationalization.  Without quality teachers who are the key to effective learning, the quality and credibility of programs rooted in internationalization cannot thrive.  Indeed, while the scholar mobility component of international higher education programs is important, strong and well trained teachers in home countries will make access and funding easier for international programs that can rely on internal teaching talent to promote cross-border and internationalization efforts.  In addition, professional development efforts and focus on teaching goals for the global context can assure that faculty who are at the core of the delivery of educational services are equipped to deal with the challenges that internalization efforts face in terms of quality and credibility.

Posted on by c.graziano · 3 Comments

Business models for HEI’s

I was particularly intrigued by this weeks readings from the OECD regarding the state of higher education, the need for long term strategic planning and looking at various policy reforms in higher education institutions throughout the world and how they can be used as models to solve some common problems all colleges and universities face. I found the information on business models interesting because we have discussed this a few times in my other higher education classes at Baruch, should colleges/universities be treated as businesses? Should students be treated as customers? Students are increasingly looking for a return on their investment into education. Do the same rules apply when running a business or a higher education institution? I think all of these questions are ones I never have a confident clear cut answer when discussing. No, I don’t believe students should only be concerned about their ROI, nor do I believe faculty, staff and administrators should look at them as customers. However, there is something to be said about the model universities have followed for many years, that doesn’t seem to be sustainable in the long run. We continue to hear about small liberal arts colleges being forced to close their doors because they can no longer afford to operate – or city and state universities funding from the federal and state government being cut year after year, forces schools to make major changes in order to continue operating. Maybe this shift towards a more “business-type” model will be necessary and beneficial to secure a more stable and strategic plan for institutions.

Defining an institutions value proposition: while almost all universities have a mission statement (or should!) this brings up the point that colleges and universities must not forget they are in competition with one another.  Schools with similar missions are competing for the same students, funding opportunities, stakeholders, prestigious faculty and staff, notoriety, etc.   I hadn’t thought about how having a strong mission can also contribute to a more cost effective system, because you are focusing your resources on specific areas which can create higher quality output.  Cost structure of higher education: if there is more money to be spent, a HEI will spend more money.  It is hard to measure expenditures of a university because it varies every year, depending on funding from the government, stakeholders, donations, enrollment numbers, etc.  Higher Education Institutions are not like normal businesses, they can’t make cuts just to save money, while still preserving the quality of their education and still making it affordable and accessible.  The revenue side of higher education finance: while the goal of HEI’s is usually not to make a profit (except in the for-profit sector) public funding and student tuition and fees are the two main sources of income for colleges and universities. I personally believe this is the biggest issue facing higher education institutions, with public funding decreasing each year, and tuition prices sky high, how is the model sustainable for years to come.  Increasing tuition is not the answer, as this decreases affordability and access for many students.  I personally come from a generation of people who are graduating with large amount of student loan debt, in an economy where we are many times under paid or under employed, which is hindering an entire generations future success.  The OECD article points out alternate sources of funding as options including philanthropy, contracting with private partners, research initiatives, and commercialization of products and services.  Performance based funding schemes are also mentioned, but also explored is the array of potential negative effects and limitations these can have on HEI’s.  I think the article has done a great job of identifying possible business models and providing a framework for self-assessment which I believe many colleges and universities could greatly benefit from.

Posted on by DButler1 · 1 Comment

W-7 How to ensure the quality of a Higher Education Institution and why it is so important?

How to ensure the quality of a Higher Education Institution and why it is so important?
The broad answer is a “skilled workforce” coming from the university. The quality of one’s life is correlated in many ways by the quality of education that one has. Today, many more adults are going back to school for many different reasons, but the common denominator for most is a more secure job with a brighter career path. Many of these students are adults who are eager to learn new skills and they demand results. Within the Higher Ed realm, adult learners are demanding the quality that the institutions are promising and thus the institutions must deliver to this new and increasing clientele who also tend to learn differently from the traditional age college student and require flexibility. Schools need to enhance the quality of its delivery of goods through accountability, improvements, transparency and innovation.
Higher Education Institutions today need to compete for visibility, funding, and partnerships to ensure that they stay competitive in the market. Institutions are a business and the product they are delivering is an education. Just like any other business, the goal is to deliver goods to whomever is buying in Higher Ed, and the students are the buyers.
What is the value of an institution and how is it measured? For Higher Ed, it is graduation rates, degree production, credit accumulation, as well as educated citizens who are successful in the job market thus fostering the reputation of the institution. When companies recruit for students on a campus, it is usually because they have hired a student from that institution previously, who has excelled in their company, helping the company to grow. The company then hires more students and it grows more, to the point where other companies are noticing. The competitors will then look to see where this pool of highly skilled workers are coming from, and recruit at that school themselves. Advertisement for the University will speak for itself by the product that is delivered.

Posted on by a.johnson1 · 3 Comments

Week 7: Reflections on Excess Policies

One of our earlier readings addressed the various policies each nation exhibits as a weakness. It was suggested that there should be a commitment to developing a shared global initiative for internationalization. Instead of competing for international students and research, working on quality, equity and accountability is more important. However, this week’s reading differs on what the shared global goal should entail. According to OECD -Education Policy, due to social, economic, cultural differences globally, establishing system- level effective policies within the home country that deliver on equity and quality will yield better education outcomes. I understand that it would be challenging to require all countries to practice one particular reform because one size does not fit all. Nonetheless, the fact that there have been over 450 education reforms established between 2008 and 2014 is absurd. Especially since they are not adequately funded. There are way too many polices being issued and not enough partnerships are being formed. However, on a positive note, this reading touched on ensuring that the policies created should be is accountable, takes into consideration the differing factors and is aligned to the governance structure.
I respect that the OECD countries are working on preparing the students for the future. Some countries have developed policies that will raise a student’s performance and based on early childhood education. This had me reflect on our current debate in America to institute universal pre-K, which means it would be required and funded within our current education system. By the time a child is 3 years of age, 85% of his/her core structures of the brain has been formed. This means that establishing a curriculum early on that cultivates a child’s ability to learn through assessment tools will be helpful.
The reading also touched on recognizing the need to invest in, foster and nurture faculty within internationalization. Lack of student motivation, teacher collaboration, and professionalism in school leadership can negatively impact an international plan. Some countries have decided to offer professional development for school staff and school leaders through government funding. According to Cintron and Flaniken (2001), leadership and staff development programs are essential tools in keeping employees at various levels competitive and thriving. This would also aid in the current global problem of retaining qualified staff and faculty.
I would like to address one concept from the OECD- the State of Higher Education, Research Excellence Initiatives. Yes, research can lead to broad changes and its flexibility may attract talented researchers and can lead to professorships and tenure track positions. But, research is also encountering a competitive environment within internationalization for ideas, talent and funds. Why is research funded way more than actual international programs for students? Do we care more about research or students being culturally aware? Why not alternate funding to each area every few years to make them more equitable?

 

Cintron, R. & Flaniken, F. (1997). Performance Appraisal: A supervision or leadership tool? International

                Journal of Business and Social Science, (2) No. 17, 31-32