Last week the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education released model state legislation to create teaching fellowships for high school seniors willing to teach in high-need schools. Their approach includes a four-year college scholarship, accompanied by professional development, in exchange for a commitment to teach in a high-need school for four years. It is an excellent idea — and it could go farther still.
AACTE’s proposed approach rests on the notion that colleges and universities are still the best place to prepare teachers. For the past 20 years critics of teacher education, blaming gaps in student achievement on university-based teacher preparation, have touted alternative routes to teaching like “boot camps” and certification programs offered by non-university providers. They cite studies—including one that I published in 2005 -- indicating that ed school graduates feel ill-prepared for the classroom realities of teaching.
Yet colleges and universities still prepare nearly 90 percent of the nation’s teachers. We cannot abandon them, not for nostalgic but for very pragmatic reasons. To produce enough new teachers to meet schools’ needs over the next several decades, the nation must rely on institutions of higher education to prepare them. Plus unlike other teacher education providers, universities have faculty in the content or disciplinary areas in which students will teach.
For the past six years, the Woodrow Wilson Foundation has sponsored and promoted programs comparable to that being proposed by AACTE in five states — Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, New Jersey, and another state soon to be announced. We have learned that it is indeed possible to recruit top students to teaching positions in high-need schools with fellowships of $30,000. Their retention rate exceeds 95 percent after three years. The teacher candidates range from published scientists to award-winning engineers to recent graduates with high academic honors.
The Woodrow Wilson experience indicates that master’s programs are more effective than the baccalaureates proposed by AACTE. They are one-quarter the cost, four times faster, and have greater appeal to career changers.
The Woodrow Wilson Teaching Fellowship also demonstrates that fellowships can be used as a vehicle for strengthening university-based teacher education programs. The 28 universities participating in the Fellowship have or are in the process of developing clinically intensive programs in partnership with local school districts, integrating disciplinary and pedagogical instruction and taught by clinical and academic faculty, including three years of post-graduation mentoring.
The AACTE proposal focuses on states, which Woodrow Wilson found to be the highest leverage target for such fellowships. Constitutionally, education is a state responsibility and states are the primary school funder. They also approve teacher education programs and set licensure requirements for teachers. In a time in which teacher hiring is down, small numbers of teachers can make an extraordinary difference if concentrated in a single state. For instance, in Indiana approximately 100 teachers are hired annually in the STEM fields, the highest-need hiring area.
There is an extraordinary opportunity to carry out the AACTE proposal today. Rather than conducting a campaign in 50 state capitols, a more effective approach might be to turn to Washington. Shifting to a single state-based program of the type that AACTE proposes promises far greater impact than the myriad of small, low-impact programs funded by Title II of the Higher Education and Elementary and Secondary Education Acts.With ESEA reauthorization in the offing, with bipartisan interest in teacher quality, and with the emphasis on local control that the AACTE approach makes possible, this model could stand a better chance than many in the current contentious environment.
In fact, it is possible to go even further than the AACTE proposal to strengthen teacher education. To qualify for new Title II funding, states could be asked to adopt data systems which would assess the effectiveness of graduates of the state’s ed schools in raising student achievement. Using this data, states would be expected to close failing teacher education programs and employ the fellowships to support top students to attend top-rated teacher education programs.
These students would be required to teach for three years in high-need schools in state. Our research shows that a teaching commitment any longer than three years is a barrier to top students applying — a psychological more than a true limitation. Even though Woodrow Wilson has an 80 percent retention rate after three years, the notion of a four-year program plus four years of service is formidable for high school seniors — a significant portion of their life.
The value of a state-by-state model like AACTE’s is that it can be tailored to local needs and implemented on a scale that is sustainable. If it is linked to incentives for institutional change that can also expand campus by campus and state by state, and if it is made the focus of federal efforts, this kind of approach could make real inroads not only in recruiting new teachers, but in preparing them for long and successful careers.
Arthur Levine, a former president of Teachers College, Columbia University, is president of the Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation.
The Common Application announced Tuesday that it is keeping the current essay prompts (and word limit of 650 words). When the prompts were introduced last year, they received mix reviews, but the Common Application announcement said that a survey found that 70 percent of member colleges and 90 percent of school counselors approved of the prompts. They are:
Some students have a background or story that is so central to their identity that they believe their application would be incomplete without it. If this sounds like you, then please share your story.
Recount an incident or time when you experienced failure. How did it affect you, and what lessons did you learn?
Reflect on a time when you challenged a belief or idea. What prompted you to act? Would you make the same decision again?
Describe a place or environment where you are perfectly content. What do you do or experience there, and why is it meaningful to you?
Discuss an accomplishment or event, formal or informal, that marked your transition from childhood to adulthood within your culture, community, or family.
GRE volume was up about 5 percent in the United States in 2013, and by larger percentages in some other countries. Among all countries outside the United States, GRE test-taking was up 30 percent, and the figure was up 70 percent in India, the Educational Testing Service announced.
I’ve taught both theoretical and applied university classes in my academic career, and the opening lecture always has one thing in common: an invitation to my students to demand something of me. I tell them to insist they walk away from my course writing better, speaking better, thinking more analytically and a little more comfortable with numbers. Indeed, I urge them to insist the same of their university education writ large.
My efforts to frame courses like Sociology of Education and Social Science Research Methods around a set of broadly applicable skills aligns me with an “outcomes” orientation increasingly promoted by academic, business and political leaders. Yet whether my students achieved the four capacities I encourage or not, their college academic transcript will never tell.
If the answer to those who doubt the value of higher education is to trumpet the full educative impact of a postsecondary education, students deserve a credential that describes their full set of educative experiences. The time has come to extend the traditional academic transcript and begin issuing Postsecondary Achievement Reports (PARs), a verified summative document issued by colleges and universities that aligns and reflects each institution’s deeper educative goals.
While every institution could issue a PAR according to its own academic policies, what defines a PAR is a set of generally accepted conventions for the structure and technical formatting of academic transcripts that include co-curricular and competency-based information, along with traditional information such as courses, grades and credits. But before describing the PAR in greater detail, let’s first set some context for why colleges and universities have begun to think differently about how they document learning outcomes.
Defenders of academe are inclined to agree that transcripts and diplomas are insufficient credentials, though for very different reasons. As the scholar Andrew DelBanco argues in “College: What is, what was and should be,” the traditional four-year college experience can be an exploratory time for students to discover their passions and test ideas and values with the help of teachers and peers. If a degree is really about developing a whole person, and preparing them with humanistic education that will serve them in a very dynamic career landscape, surely a ledger of courses and grades alone is a poor reflection of that experience.
Indeed, institutions with a more vocational orientation face a similar challenge documenting the industry-skill certifications their graduates achieve on their way to conventional degrees.
It’s not surprising that, given these pressures, higher education has, in fact, put forth efforts to innovate the credential. Three distinct developments are already in process: co-curricular transcripts, competency-based transcripts and data-enabled eTranscripts. Together they lay the foundation for a new generation of academic credentialing. Co-curricular and competency-based transcripts innovate at the level of content and substance, extending the academic transcript. Electronic transcripts innovate the medium of credentials, enabling machine-readable data and analytics that can make student learning outcomes more easily understood and actionable.
Each initiative has successfully generated some momentum and adoption in the higher education community. For example, Northern Arizona University is doing innovative work documenting the student competencies that have been mastered via coursework, and State University of New York at Geneseo’s is continuing long-standing efforts to capture the student leadership, research, study abroad and other co-curricular experiences that define its vision of a postsecondary education.
While these institutions are already extending their transcripts, there are good reasons for concern that the grassroots nature of their innovations will conspire against its own success. Specifically, I fear a Tower of Babel if we do not find a way to converge around a lingua franca that describes the basic structure of such 21st century extended transcripts of the type being issued by pioneering universities across the country.
We take for granted the fact that transcripts make sense; we all expect to see a course title and number, a letter or number grade, in a sequence that is chronologically based. But transcripts are not actually standardized in any formal sense. My company, Parchment, exchanges millions of electronic transcripts each year. Our platform has been developed to help both sending and receiving institutions align and utilize the different information transcripts contain. For example, colleges may award different numbers of credits for essentially the same course. A-level work at one college may be B-level work elsewhere. Over time the academy gravitated toward a basic document structure, along with a strong professional code for issuing transcripts that remain a sacred trust of our university registrars. This standardization respects academic freedom while supporting learners in their pursuit of academic and professional opportunities, for example when transferring between institutions and seeking course credit for prior learning.
How does a university articulate a competency transcript from a peer institution? Where does Ernst & Young look for evidence of leadership, when each institution’s co-curricular information is reported in different sections, with no convention for describing the process by which activities were verified? How do various information systems import achievement data, when the field names and file formats lack any rhyme or reason? Before you know it, the best intentions and efforts give rise to documentation that isn’t widely understood, reliable or actionable.
We need to extend the transcript, but we need a method to do it within a well-worn convention that is backward compatible. By backward compatible I mean we need to preserve the role of the traditional academic transcript, and create a reasonable roadmap for extending it, when institutions so choose, in a way that serves students, educators, associations and employers.
This is why I am calling for a “PAR,” a Postsecondary Achievement Report. A PAR is a concise, electronic document that provides a standardized, machine-readable report of the full range of higher education experience. It can be verified by the academic registrar to confirm credibility, and it creates a common understanding of both course-based and campus-based achievements. A PAR does it sensibly, recognizing academic freedom. It is not a uniform way to grade; rather, it is a consistent document structure and data standard when institutions choose to extend their traditional academic transcripts. The PAR can be issued alongside a traditional transcript, or act as its next generation successor. It is a summative statement from the institution and a passport for the learner.
Perhaps the best model for a PAR is the Higher Education Achievement Report (HEAR), which has been evaluated for almost 10 years in Britain. The HEAR not only provides a standardized academic transcript; it also captures information relevant to employers. And the information is captured and transferred as electronic and verifiable data.
The HEAR is a maximum of six pages long and adheres to a standard template. It is verified by the academic registrar and regularly updated throughout a student’s enrollment. It is accessible by the student at any time, and is unique and personalized to them. There HEAR contains six sections:
Personal information about the student (name, date of birth, etc.)
Name and title of degree earned
Level of degree in the context of a defined, national framework
Detailed course information and results
Information about the degree and professional status (if applicable)
Additional awards and activities
In their final report, the HEAR’s creators summarize well the goal of their work: “The HEAR has been designed to encourage a sophisticated approach to recording achievement that better represents the full range of outcomes from learning and the student experience in higher education at the same time as encouraging personal development that is commensurate with a culture of lifelong learning.”
The HEAR is one example; there are various efforts internationally to create a more standardized way of reporting and documenting academic achievement. Australia has adopted something similar with the Australian Higher Education Graduation Statement (AHEGS). Our colleagues abroad also recognize the need to extend the transcript electronically, but do it in a way that is understood among all constituents nationally and internationally.
The U.S is the world leader and innovator in postsecondary education; we can take extended transcripting to the next level.
To succeed, we need to start with a core set of institutions, particularly those that are already doing competency-based and/or co-curricular transcripting, and have adopted eTranscripts. Those institutions can share their experience to establish a set of conventions that creates a common language for all. Institutions can create a roadmap for implementation, by adopting sections when ready. The beauty of a PAR is that it represents incremental change. At least some sections of PAR would be immediately actionable by any institution using eTranscripts. If a limited form PAR is as far as an institution is comfortable going at first, so be it. The pace of the roadmap will be driven, in part, by the validation PAR receivers give to more robust PAR issuers. In other words, if employers or grad school admissions committees start paying more attention to parts of the PAR, more institutions will add them. The more valuable a “complete” PAR is found to be, the more it will be demanded, and the broader and faster adoption will be.
Such an effort will require the collaboration of a number of campus leaders beyond registrars and admission officers. Chief academic officers, deans of continuing education and online programs, directors of student affairs and career services, as well as other campus leaders, will need to be engaged in the conversation both on their campuses and through their national organizations. And core organizational stakeholders like the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers (AACRAO) and the P20W Education Standards Council (PESC) are central actors in helping to make the PAR a reality.
We are all ready for a new era of credentials communication, one that is aligned with our more mobile and digital culture. The PAR will be universally understood and actionable. It will be easily portable and stackable in an individual’s personal, online credential profile. Lifelong learners will start with a PAR, then continue to add digital academic or professional credentials from an ever-growing diversity of resources — from degrees to certificates to badges — to their profile, and present a verifiable, complete picture of education and skills.
In addition to knowledge and specific skills, a college experience imparts the ability to communicate a compelling story, to synthesize information into a bigger picture and to use data and numbers to understand a problem. Those are some of the characteristics that Google is looking for and that LinkedIn wants to help employers identify. In our knowledge economy, where opportunities are defined by what you know and how well you know it, a PAR will provide the foundation for learners, educators and employers to make more insightful and successful decisions.
Returning to the skills I encourage my students to demand in my opening lecture, for me the PAR is personal. I know from both my academic and professional experience how much they matter. In my last lecture — to the great surprise of my students — I reveal that before becoming an academic I was a technology entrepreneur. The skills I said they should demand are the reason my co-founders and I could create and build Blackboard..
We must ensure that the significant value gained during one’s postsecondary journey is captured and validated. A PAR would be a major step to empower learners, and help them turn credentials into opportunities.
Matthew Pittinsky is the CEO of Parchment and co-founder and former CEO of Blackboard. He is on the faculty of Arizona State University, and serves on the Board of Trustees of the Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation.
Many colleges admit some of their freshmen for the spring semester rather than the fall semester. An article in The Washington Post looks at the way this system works at the University of Maryland at College Park, which admits -- for a state flagship university -- an unusually large share of its first-year class this way. Between 1994 and now, spring freshmen have gone from making up 8 percent of the first-year class to 21 percent.
It was the main subject of this month's White House summit, and members of the House of Representatives subcommittee focused their attention on the best ways to help low-income college students and first-generation college students not only get into college, but graduate, at a hearing Tuesday. The hearing of the House Education and the Workforce Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Training, chaired by Rep. Virginia Foxx, a North Carolina Republican, was to discuss approaches to the issue and needed improvements in the upcoming reauthorization of the Higher Education Act.
Witnesses (who included senior administrators at the College of Westchester and Fayetteville State and DePaul Universities), and lawmakers touched on several different themes, many that have been voiced before. Among them:
The Pay It Forward Affordability Act, which Rep. Suzanne Bonamici, an Oregon Democrat, plans to introducing later this week. The legislation would let students attend public colleges for free, but once they land their first job after graduation, a percentage of their income will be deducted to pay for the tuition. Oregon's approach to this has been controversial.
Simplifying eligibility for the TRIO program, as well as changing it so that it follows the Pell Grant’s eligibility requirements.
Finding better ways to measure success. The support program directors at each institution need to use measurable data and more comprehensive metrics to determine the program’s success
According to Dick Moll, co-founder of the Common Application, “The unavoidable standardization of the Common Application, not to mention the online debacle for students trying to use it this year, causes serious questions regarding its service to both the candidate and the college … I sense that the Common App’s time is up.”
The Common App organization obviously doesn’t agree. One executive was recently quoted as saying, “We are feeling good about how things are going … [But] we would never go so far as to say that everything is fixed for every person in all circumstances because we’re dealing with a very complex piece of technology.”
Unfortunately, this focus on technology problems and their fixes avoids discussion of the real problem at Common App.
And the real problem is this: The Common Application organization has forgotten its core ideal of “holistic admissions.”
This good idea encourages consideration of applicants as real people, not just bundles of statistics and scores. While the Common App requires its “member” schools to review an essay, it has made those essay choices more restrictive and uniform; colleges are charging students $10 just to attach their artwork; and it’s not embracing video technology, a step that could provide a true sense of individual expression.
Instead of pursuing its core ideal, the Common Application has transformed itself into a Web processor. Yet doing this today is just as off-mission as if the organization had insisted on running printing presses during the paper era. Instead of advancing “holistic” admissions, Common App has been absorbed in de-bugging its site, bulking up its infrastructure, solving a steady stream of back-office reliability and security issues, and conducting PR.
So why do colleges put up with this?
Many colleges that join the Common Application experience an immediate bump of 20-30 percent in application volume and fee revenue. And because “selectivity” is computed by U.S. News & World Report as a simple measure around the ratio of entering class size to volume of applications, each new member of the Common App can, thus, say it is more "prestigious."
This, of course, is a total fiction. Everybody in higher education knows that Common Application adoption doesn't suddenly make each new member institution 20-30 percent more prestigious. The irony is that as institutions sign on to the Common Application, sanctimoniously affirming a "holistic" approach to evaluating applicants, they are chasing more favorable assessment according to U.S. News' specious, non-holistic and quantitative measure of "prestige."
Yet, because it holds the keys to greater rankings “prestige,” the Common App can force its member colleges to live with whatever malfunctions and backwardness come with its technology platform. There’s also a suppression of innovation, given that admissions officers cannot easily suggest or add new features or functions that might enrich the application process. In addition, the Common Application has unwittingly created a means by which other senior administrators can wrest control from the admissions office. We've seen university boards and presidents forcing the Common App on admissions officers because of their unquenchable desire for greater “prestige.”
This is especially ironic given that the Common Application "movement" was created by admissions officers to advance their ideals and influence.
So is there a solution here? Yes.
It starts with the Common Application renewing its commitment to the "holistic" evaluation of applicants and phasing out its misguided efforts to become an application-processing vendor.
To do this, the Common App could announce and promote a new Web form, the New Common Application, which would collect common field information only.
The New Common Application would be available for students to complete at the Common Application site. The New Common Application would contain most, if not all, of the fields of the current Common Application. But, unlike the current version, the New Common Application would neither collect payments nor be submitted by the student. Rather, it would serve as an entry point for a student's common information, which the student could then subsequently download into full, customized applications served separately – either by universities directly, or by vendors on their behalf.
Along with this new form, the Common Application organization would offer an API – Application Programming Interface – for licensing by institutions or their vendors. Any entity, whether it was a college hosting its own Web application or a vendor hosting Web applications on behalf of client institutions, could license this API from the Common Application organization. The licensing entity would then configure its Web application so that students could automatically populate it with their New Common Application information. The licensing entity would pay the Common Application a fee for each student who downloaded his or her data in this fashion.
Over time, this approach would eradicate the need for redundant typing of application information by students. And any college or vendor that licensed the API would spread this benefit throughout the ecosystem. Obviously, every admissions-servicing vendor would need to quickly acquire an API license for the New Common Application. By "hooking" its system into the New Common Application, the vendor would thereby add an important and necessary new feature – saving typing for student users.
One of the most significant benefits of this idea would be the elimination of U.S. News' pernicious influence on the selectivity calculation in the admissions application processing business. Since every college would eventually be hooked into the New Common Application, no subgroup of institutions would hold an advantage in terms of receiving more applications by virtue of having reduced the typing burden.
Individual colleges could also go back to expressing themselves individually through their application form, welcoming more interesting and imaginative expression from students, and pressuring vendors to compete and innovate with new features and processing capability.
For its part, the Common Application organization would likely become richer, despite having dropped out of the for-profit, top-line revenue chase. With growing revenues from API fees, and no distraction from the challenges of processing applications, Common App could contribute new ideas, award scholarships, grant stipends to admissions officers who innovate for “holistic” admissions, and generally behave in a manner more befitting its nonprofit status.
It’s not too late for the Common Application organization to choose a different and better path, one that would advance, not distract from, its core ideal of “holistic” admissions.
EDITOR'S NOTE: Inside Higher Ed was unaware at the time that this piece was published that CollegeNet, the company led by the author of this article, was twice involved in patent litigation -- since settled -- involving the Common Application.