Comments on Who Graduates At-Risk Students?

• For-Profits and Student Learning Outcomes
• Posted by Sean McKitrick , Assistant Provost at Binghamton University (SUNY) on June 18, 2009 at 8:45am EDT

• As someone who has in the past been employed at for-profit institutions, I see some of the wisdom in the federal government's holding all institutions accountable for high(er) graduation (and retention) rates, but I also see this as being quite problematic. It seems to me that the Career Colleges Association--and especially its member institutions--must know that their own resources are poured into keeping students enrolled in courses to meet basic requirements implied in their latest profit and loss statements (if not what they have promised to their investors), sometimes (hopefully not often) cutting deals with students who would otherwise not attend by cutting corners on the academic side of the house. This includes pressure to negotiate "learning agreements" with students who do not want to complete their work on time, and pressuring instructors to retain students, sometimes having the effect of watering down course outcomes--at least if the instructors wish to keep their jobs.

  It is nice to hear that members of the Career Colleges Association have higher placement rates (when they regularly "teach out" programs that are no longer hot on the job market) and that they have higher graduation rates, but what about measures of student learning outcomes? I laughed cynically when the article indicated at the end that they would get to to "value" someday, which is a typical way of forestalling answers to the simple question: "How does a school/college/university know that a student is learning? In non-profit private and public education we must answer the same question (and sometimes not particularly well), but to pretend that a school is doing well in education simply because it has more students cross the graduation stage ignores more important questions about what students are getting from a college education and what many thousands of dollars in government-sponsored financing is yielding for the individual student and the public-at-large.

• Of course when you load them up with that much debt...
• Posted by Watcher on June 18, 2009 at 8:45am EDT

• ...you want to make sure they get that credential and get a job. How much they learned is another issue.

• Problematic study design
• Posted by Dr. Ron S. on June 18, 2009 at 9:00am EDT

• While for-profit schools that admit a higher proportion of at-risk students may do a good job of attracting thes students, I'm not convinced that this study shows they do any better a job of keeping them. The best way to get at the comparative retention rates of at-risk students is to control specifically for that segment of students. As far as I can tell,this study compares overall retention rates based on total enrollment. Since this study fails to compare the schools' actual at-risk (i.e., Pell grant eligible)student retention rates, there is still no emprical evidence that these for-profit schools perform better than their non-profit, public or private counterparts in that regard.

• More food for thought
• Posted by Kent Phillippe , Director of Research at American Association of Community Colleges on June 18, 2009 at 9:45am EDT

• While the data reported do reflect graduation rates, as reported to the US Education Department (ED), it is not a complete story. Many community college students transfer to a four-year institution before receipt of a degree or certificate. Transfer data are reported to ED on the same survey, and when one includes students who transfer in the analysis, public 2-year college rates go from 23% to 40%, whereas private for-profit 2-year college rates only increase by 1 percentage point. If the goal is to educate students then a better measure is transfer and completion. In addition, there is not a measure of academic preparation—another significant factor in degree completion, as well as time to degree. The majority of entering community college students are academically underprepared in at least one subject area, which will increase the time to degree for these students--this study does not control for academic preparation and receipt of Pell Grants is not an adequate proxy for that. Finally, expanding the window beyond the 3 years reported in GRS would likely provide different findings since many community college students take more than 3 years to complete their degree programs.

• Pell eligibility
• Posted by Statistician on June 18, 2009 at 9:45am EDT

• Eligibility for Pell grants is a function of several things, including family financial circumstances and the price of tuition/fees/expenses.

  A student attending a highly subsidized community college may not be Pell-eligible because of those built-in subsidies that reduce the cost of tuition.

  His/her identical twin attending a "career college" or proprietary school might be Pell-eligible simply because the proprietary school costs so much more.

  What if the comparisons were based on Estimated Family Contribution?

  That would give us a better idea of how "Career Colleges" are succeeding with disadvantaged students when compared with other sectors in post-secondary education.

• Quality of Degree Earned is THE Issue
• Posted by Elizabeth Baldwin , Director of Federal and Agency Relations at Florida Community College at Jacksonville (FCCJ) on June 18, 2009 at 9:45am EDT

• FCCJ recently submitted testimony to the Dept. of Education on the negotiated rulemaking process for Title IV programs. That testimony included this sad story.

  FCCJ had a student come to us with a special education high school diploma who had attended a for-profit university and was seeking admission into one of our selective programs. Although the student and their family told the university that the student had a special education diploma, the for-profit university accepted her into a college credit program. The student and their family took out large loans to pay the tuition and fees and the student made the academic honor roll by earning As and Bs, including an A in college algebra. This is despite later test results from FCCJ that placed the student at an elementary school level in mathematics, language and reading.

  Since the student tested at an elementary school level and did not have a standard high school diploma or GED, they could not be considered for college level work. After counseling and more testing, the student opted to work on a GED and was readministered an easier assessment according to Florida state guidelines for entry into the GED program. A 9.0 grade level is required to take GED classes, and the student tested overall at sixth grade seventh month. The student took adult studies classs to improve their scores so they could enter the GED program. The student was not able, however, to improve their scores so they could get a GED. Under state law, none of the student's scores would have gained them entry into any of the certificate non-college credit programs operated by a public institution, much less entrance into college credit programs.

  This student and their family took out $16,000 in student loans to pay for a two year degree from a for-profit university that clearly was interested only in the tuiton money obtained from federally backed student loans. This student, who has been unable to find employment beyond an entry level job, will have great difficulty paying off the student loans they and their family took out. It is a travesty that this student was encouraged to take out huge student loans when they had almost no chance of ever getting a job that would allow repayment.

  Graduating all incoming students is the ultimate goal of institutions of higher education. But a diploma is worthless unless the quality of the education and training gained can be assured by the granting institution's adherance to assessement, remediation and education standards.

• Graduation rates
• Posted by Larry Gainor on June 18, 2009 at 10:00am EDT

• Too bad they didn't (overtly) include diploma mills in the study. They've often succeeded in graduating even the most at-risk students...

• Graduation Study
• Posted by Stephen B. Friedheim , Strategic Coach (Former Chair of CCA) at Education Systems & Solutions on June 18, 2009 at 10:00am EDT

• The Imagine America study is a good first start in clearing the air about success rates across all sectors. I fear the critics fail to recognize that the so-called for-profit schools, which I prefer to describe as for-students schools, are measured also on their placement rates and held to high standards by their accrediting bodies, as well as many state regulatory agencies, which is unlike other sectors of higher education. Therein lies the real measure of value.

• Posted by Daniel Bennett , Administrative Director at The Center for College Affordability & Productivity on June 18, 2009 at 11:45am EDT

• Mr. McKitrick stated above, "but to pretend that a school is doing well in education simply because it has more students cross the graduation stage ignores more important questions about what students are getting from a college education and what many thousands of dollars in government-sponsored financing is yielding for the individual student and the public-at-large."

  I completely agree with you (other than the fact that mistake taxpayer financing as government), which is exactly why colleges need to start measuring and publicly reporting learning outcomes and post-graduation success. It seems to me that the career-oriented schools are doing a better job of tracking their students post-graduation than their non-profit counterparts. I'm also under the impression that the career services at the proprietary schools are more effective in helping students find jobs related to their studies than most non-profits. Having actual data to analyze and make relative comparisons would substantiate which institutions are adding more value to student learning outcomes and post-graduation success, and effectively allow policy makers to decide where we are getting the most bang for the buck with taxpayer money.

• Why such skepticism?
• Posted by Scott Fleming on June 18, 2009 at 11:45am EDT

• I'm somewhat surprised at the response to these findings. The report uses apples to apples comparisons to show for-profit institutions are performing pretty well against their peers with exactly the types of students we as a country need to reach if we're serious about the President's goal of increasing the number of students with credentials. Why isn't this something to be celebrated? More students are attending postsecondary programs than ever, and the presence of for-profit providers is providing needed capacity. I'm not sure how cash-strapped states plan to expand capacity at public institutions while simultaneously reducing higher education spending.

  Specifically to Dr. Ron S.'s comment, the study does indeed compare Pell-eligible completion rates, as noted in the paragraph in between tables describing undergraduate completion rates. For-profits fare better.

  Kent Phillipe's suggestion to include transfer rates is a good one. Is that 40 percent figure the proportion of students who transfer and earn a credential, or is it the aggregate number of students who complete or transfer? Transfer and completion is beyond IPEDS' ability to capture, so would another source like the BPS data set provide an answer?

  I have to disagree with Statistician's point. While some community college tuition rates may be low, Pell grants are awarded based on cost of attendance, which includes living expenses. Even the lowest cost public two-year institutions still have out of pocket expenses that exceed the maximum Pell grant. Since the award tops out at a CoA equivalent to the maximum Pell grant, it doesn't matter to the student if the cost of attendance is $5,000 or $50,000, they are still eligible for the same amount in Pell based on their EFC. Higher cost institutions do not enroll more Pell students because they are more expensive to attend. Not surprisingly, a similar analysis using EFC instead of Pell awards yields nearly identical results.

  If Congress wants to apply a completion or retention standard, let's apply it to all institutions equally. The problem is that those types of criteria have to be carefully constructed or institutions will be tempted to apply enrollment criteria that weed out at-risk students, ultimately having the opposite effect on access and enrollment that we should be pursuing as a country.

• Watch out for Grade Inflation
• Posted by NextGen Teacher , Instructor at Regional Public on June 18, 2009 at 11:45am EDT

• Concurr with the sentiments with the Elizabeth Baldwin above. While the main premise of the study is appreciated - we do want to admit, retain and graduate especially at-risk students. Unfortunately, this focus on retention and graduation has led to rampant grade inflation and it's the same students who "feel" that they have graduated with honors who suffer when they get out in the market with elementary critical thinking and subject skills.
  QUALITY should be the focus of the new administration. Anyone can produce from a diploma mill.

• Grade Inflation
• Posted by NexGen Teacher , Instructor at Regional Public on June 18, 2009 at 11:45am EDT

• Many not-for-profit school also engage in widespread grade inflation and cheating practices and in this context would also be considered diploma mills. Yes, it's the quality of the graduate which matters.

• Posted by NDProf on June 18, 2009 at 11:45am EDT

• I work in the for-profit sector and the truth is, they are not all the same. I had a bad experience with one, in which I only felty like an employee. I work for a different one now, which invests in professional development and in having rigorous standards.

  I have never felt any pressure to be easy in my grading. In fact, just the opposite.

   

   

• Types of accountability
• Posted by Tom Flint , Executive Director of Academic Strategy at Kaplan Higher Education on June 18, 2009 at 12:00pm EDT

• Many for-profits have institutional accreditation through the national (rather than regional) accrediting agencies. Some of these agencies have cut-points on graduation and placement rates, such that subpar results lead to adverse consequences including probation and withdrawal of accreditation. In addition to the fact that retaining a current student is less costly than recruiting a replacement, for-profits thus have strong incentives to see their students succeed. The question of comparability of learning achievement is relevant--but also applicable to comparisons that cross all sectors of higher education, not just for-profits versus traditional. In that regard it is of interest to note that national accrediting bodies do make performance on student learning outcomes an accreditation standard; for example, ACICS requires institutional effectivness plans with mandatory components on student retention, student placement, graduates' satisfaction, employer satisfaction, and student learning outcomes. Weakness in any area can trigger accreditation follow-up. So accountability frameworks via accreditation are present (in addition to state regulation); the debate can be about whether the bar is set high enough and whether such standards should be applicable in the public and private-not-for-profit sectors, too.

• Freud, Rationalization, and Public Relations
• Posted by Malvern Hill on June 18, 2009 at 12:15pm EDT

• " . . .[For-profits] just don't want to be punished for admitting and trying to educate those who have historically had the least access to higher education and who enter college with the most risk factors that tend to drag students down."

  Stephanie B. Friedham: As long as we're replacing "for-profit" with "for-student," let's not forget another important player, the stockholder or investor. So we could also say "for-stockholder" whose financial backing is crucial, whether or not he or she particularly cares for education per se.

  A former colleague of mine works for such a university. Every company is different, but he suspects that his school has a cozy relationship with state legislators and accreditation agencies when it comes to things like faculty governance and workload-to-compensation issues. Remember that the strain to turn a profit worthy of attracting investment creates a unique challenge for quality education, just as budget cuts in the public sector does there also. (My collegue is a math teacher and feels that the standardized labs and tests he gives his students have a built-in bias toward making students APPEAR to become more proficient than they really are. But he could just be bellyaching because he's had to give up autonomy in the classroom, sacrificing some job satisfaction, which we all know is irrelevant to high quality, inspirational teaching, right?)

  Of interest also is my colleague's (admitteldly anecdotal) reporting that several of the local and regional administrators he's chatted with express a belief in the free enterprise system and are therefore somewhat hostile to government subsidies to education (K-16), except where student loans are concerned, of course.

  So here's my problem: If what he says holds for the bulk of owners and executives throughout the industry (and I don't know that it does), how can they be really and truly "for-student" when it is in their direct financial interest that there always be a large pool of at-risk students available to attend "for-student"/"for-stockholder" universities?

  By the way, another faculty member at my friend's institution, who whole-heartedly buys in, told my friend that we live in a free country; anyone can succeed. Therefore, corporations are right to lobby to minimize government subsidies to such things as education. When my colleague tried to explain that he thought the deck is therefore stacked such as to gurantee an "at-risk" population, his interlocutor was having none of it. If that business professor was right, then the notion that some students have "the most risk factors that tend to drag [them] down," and therefore need the special kind of help that only a for-profit, I mean for-student, school can provide, well, that strikes us both as a self-serving contradiction.

  In other words, if we are really for-student, we must aid education at all levels in a genuine effort to SHRINK the pool of students who arrive at college in the at-risk category in ther first place. We must desire that fewer and fewer students from K-12 on NOT need to attend such "for-student" colleges. Otherwise, we sound like opportunistic charlatans.

• Stop bickering and try to learn to fix your flaws
• Posted by Neal Raisman , President at AcademicMAPS on June 18, 2009 at 3:45pm EDT

• I have worked with over 260 colleges, universities and career (for-profit schools), In so doing I have learned a few things.

   

   

   

  1. a good school(one that provides a good education/training and acres about students) is good whether it is for-profit or not; and a bad school is a bad school (one that does not care about students, their learning and graduating) no matter whether it is not-for-profit or for-profit

   

  2. the major difference between a good not-for-profit and a for-profit is accounting systems, Not-for call money made or not used fund balance; for-profits, profit

   

  3. schools often try to justify their own mediocre education and concern for students by pointing at others and claiming they are not as good as we are

   

  4. graduation rates do count since students come to school to get a degree and job and leave or transfer because they do not see that happening at the college they started in

   

  5. society and families pay schools to get students to graduation and jobs that will enrich the individual and society

   

  6. higher education in America loses over $4billion a year from attrition while students lose about the same from their investments and the society is throwing tax dollars into the attrition sink hole which is why we do not have the support or public dollars we used to get.

   

  7. schools that care about students have higher graduation rates

   

  8. we are capable of telling others what they need to do without realizing what we need to do

   

  9. we academics are much too uncivil, picky and critical of others so we do what we can to belittle one another, one another sector, our students, our colleagues and anyone else we may not agree we do not see that there are some excellent lessons to be learned from one another and especially from successful, good for-profits who make a profit y providing a good education, training, care about students, focus on retention an on student learning

   

  10. rather than looking at and learning from studies such as the one under discussion we would rather attack, belittle, excuse it, and overlook our own flaws that are causing our schools to fail students and have to cut budgets.

   

   

   

  ENOUGH READ THE REPORT AND LEARN FROM IT. Take what is good and helpful. Lets try to put some more civility back in higher education and maybe that can help us succeed a bit more with students and ourselves.

   

   

   

  And cut the anonymous, cowardly flamings. If you have something to say at least stand behind it with your name and address. That’s called integrity.

   

  Neal Raisman Nealr@GreatServiceMatters.com

• At-risk students
• Posted by Michael Cook , Academic Program Director, General Education at Everest College Phoenix on June 18, 2009 at 3:45pm EDT

• I appreciate the comments from those who acknowledge that those of us who work at for-profit institutions do care about our students. We at Everest College Phoenix take student learning outcomes seriously. I always remind my instructors to maintain high standards, and we never force professors to water-down their courses or change grades.

  We all change our teaching methods to assist students whose education before enrollment seems sub-standard. We have added remedial classes to give students the chance to succeed. Does it worry us that students need to borrow for these classes that do not even count towards graduation? Of course it does, but for students who cannot imagine themselves succeeding in large community colleges or public universities we provide an opportunity.

  I cannot speak for our executives or our stockholders, but as a teaching administrator I can say that reading off the names of students who graduate with honors at our commencement ceremonies, and having students take photographs of themselves and their family members with me or my colleagues answers the question a man asked me while I was still an undergraduate--"Should you teach where you are comfortable or where you are needed?"

• Posted by kgotthardt on June 18, 2009 at 3:45pm EDT

• Elizabeth Baldwin, what a horrible story. I'm sorry to say, I've seen this kind of thing happen before. But your student was amazingly persistent, and I hope s/he took pride in that.

  Is the student able to get the loans discharged under "failure to benefit"? Or is ED ignoring the problem, per usual, using random judgment calls to determine qualification for discharge?

  Here's another thing to consider. Companies like Sallie Mae purposely market their products to low-income students, selling loans that have no consumer protections attached to them. So a student is convinced s/he can make a million dollars as a computer tech, only to find out the job market has dried up, s/he didn't get the education needed to find a job, and was basically ripped off. Sallie doesn't care, and neither does the school.

• The easiest way to push up graduation rate?
• Posted by P. on June 18, 2009 at 7:30pm EDT

• "After all, the easiest way to push up a college's graduation rate is to raise the bar at the point of entry"

  That's the second-easiest way. The first-easiest way is to lower the bar for graduation. Our university system has decided to focus on increasing both going rates and graduation rates. On the ground, this translates into our Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs scanning for courses that have high failure rates, and then going to have a chat with the offending departments with the result that the courses are dumbed down.

• Drinking the Kool-Aid
• Posted by Matthew 1626 on June 18, 2009 at 7:30pm EDT

• Imagine an America in which low-income students are bombarded by several billion dollars of TV and Internet advertising by boiler-room sales operations masquerading as accredited institutions of higher learning. Also imagine an America in which all of these hapless individuals are run through a process whose main function is to prolong enrollments and milk the system for all their federal financial aid eligibility is worth, leaving them with worthless degrees and tens of thousands of dollars of crushing debt.

  Now stop imagining, for that is, indeed, the America we live in. Also, stop drinking the Kool-Aid, unless, of course, you're being paid at least as well as Dr. Swail and Ms. Broff.

• Interesting Comments...
• Posted by Dr. Watson Scott Swail , President at Educational Policy Institute on June 19, 2009 at 7:45am EDT

• The comments attributed to this article show that there needs to be more communication, study, and debate about the role of career colleges. They can't, and shouldn't, be ignored. As the author of this study, I sincerely appreciate every comment herein. Kent Phillippe makes an excellent point about transfers; however, that is difficult to get at in the methodology for this study. But point well taken.

  Second, the comment about how focusing on retention and graduation has made a huge impact on grade inflation... please show me the study that suggests that to be a true trend. I haven't seen it. People talk about it, but they can't produce it. So, if you can substantiate that effect, please do. The only concern I've seen about grade inflation have been in states like Georgia, where the Hope Scholarship depends on grade. Still, I haven't seen a study that suggests that grade inflation happened there, either.

  Hopefully the report will be released soon and we can further the discussion. Thanks to all. WSS>

• Chicken as the Egg's Way of Making Another Egg
• Posted by Alice B. on June 20, 2009 at 10:45am EDT

• ". . . and overlook our own flaws that are causing our schools to fail students and have to cut budgets." Good point of logic.

  Self-fulfilling prophecy: Seriously underfund education, make it fail, use that as an excuse to "have to cut budgets." Strand whole populations. Open up a "new frontier" for the private, for-profit sector and lucrative investment opportunities (the seed money of which is, ironically, publically funded student loan programs). Boost grad rates by narrowing education to just those skills that employers want, thereby seeing to it that "at-risk" students never get to analyze what made them at risk in the first place (and will go on puting their progeny at risk. Hire PR industry to mass produce and saturate the media with this self-fulfilling prophecy myth. Nicely done.

• Look at the first line in this article:
• Posted by DFS on June 20, 2009 at 2:00pm EDT

• "... increasing push ... to tie financial support for colleges to ...success ...concerns officials [and] families ... ."
  What part of even minimal accountability do you not understand?

• What kind of two-year programs?
• Posted by CC Transfer Coordinator on June 23, 2009 at 3:00pm EDT

• From the article above: "Smaller proportions of full-time and part-time freshmen in four-year programs at career colleges return the following fall than at private nonprofit and public colleges, although career colleges retain students in two-year programs at better rates than do community colleges, according to the Imagine America study."

  Maybe I missed something, but what kind of two-year programs at the for-profit institutions are being cited? Are these AA/AS programs comparable to what the community colleges offer, or are they BA/BS completion programs populated by students who have transferred from community colleges? In California, students who transfer from the community colleges to public universities graduate at rates and time frames which are comparable to or better than those students who enter those same universities as freshmen. Assuming the same holds true for BA/BS completers at for-profit schools, the retention and graduation rates might look a little different depending on how the transfer factor is considered.