“The time has come to make education through the 14th grade available in the same way that high school education is now available. This means tuition-free education should be available in public institutions to all youth for the traditional freshman and sophomore years or for the traditional two-year junior college course.”
Although it may sound similar, this statement was not uttered by President Obama. It was, in fact, a declaration made by the United States’ first national commission on higher education, the Truman Commission, in 1947.
Now, more than a half century later, President Obama has given new life to the Truman Commission’s vision with his plan to make “two years of college... as free and universal in America as high school is today.” The proposal, modeled in part on programs in Tennessee and Chicago, promises to use federal and state dollars to eliminate the costs associated with tuition and fees at community colleges for students who enroll at least part-time and maintain a 2.5 grade point average. Though not as far-reaching at the Truman Commission’s plan, the Obama proposal aims to provide a debt-free route to a college education for all Americans willing to work for it.
The Truman Commission’s recommendations did not come to fruition for the same reason that Obama’s plan likely won’t: they faced a Republican Congress with little interest in supporting the president’s agenda or enacting large spending packages.
Still, historians agree that the commission’s bipartisan report -- and the debates it sparked -- changed the conversation about federal and state support for college access. It laid the foundation for the landmark Higher Education Act of 1965. And it prompted many state governments to move ahead with plans to expand public higher education, in particular by creating or enlarging community colleges, in the years after World War II. The same thing is happening today, as the news carries stories of free college plans being developed in Oregon, Mississippi, Minnesota, New Mexico and New York.
Much like the Obama administration, the 29 educational and civic leaders who served on the Truman Commission believed that Americans’ willingness to extend higher education opportunity to all would be the key to the nation’s economic and political future. They were part of a generation that had lived through two world wars and a devastating economic depression, and they were grappling with the frightening prospect of atomic warfare. Clearly framing higher education as a public good, the commission argued that an educated citizenry provided the best hope for preserving democratic freedom, achieving economic security and even promoting world peace.
Too many young people, the commission argued in 1947, faced barriers to higher education due to family income or geographic location, or on account of race, religion, sex or national origin. Since the 1930s, colleges, both public and private, had steadily increased tuition and fees, putting higher education out of reach for many families. Jewish students encountered admissions quotas at many private colleges, while African-Americans faced separate and unequal higher education in the segregated South. Such discrimination, the commission wrote, amounted to a “waste” of human talent. It was not only a blow to the United States’ image as a bastion of freedom and opportunity -- it was a threat to the national security.
At a time when the federal role in the nation’s education was minimal, the commission asked Washington to take the lead in assisting state and local governments to develop a nationwide network of tuition-free public colleges -- or “community colleges” -- within reach of every American. And although it recommended a range of federal aid programs, including a system of national scholarships and fellowships that could be used at any institution, public or private, the commission believed that access to higher education should be extended primarily through the public system. It was only in publicly controlled institutions, most members agreed, that fair treatment for racial and religious minorities could be assured and tuition and fees could be contained. Moreover, they hoped, the carrot of federal aid could also be used to encourage state governments in the South to end segregation in public colleges and universities.
The intense public debate over the commission’s recommendations demonstrated that the politics of federal aid to higher education were -- and still are -- complex. By the time the commission's report was released, the popularity of the 1944 G.I. Bill of Rights, which provided tuition and cost-of-living assistance to returning veterans, was obvious to everyone, but the commission’s vision of expanding access to higher education to all Americans still proved a hard sell.
As with the debate over the Obama plan, critics found the devil in the details. The proposal was described as too expensive, unrealistic, and even undemocratic. With federal aid, some argued, would come unwelcome federal control. Others charged that the commission’s estimate of Americans’ intelligence was simply too high, or that the nation’s economy had room for only so many college graduates. In 1952, the report of the Commission on Financing Higher Education, a study financed by the Rockefeller and Carnegie Foundations and endorsed by leaders of private institutions, suggested that higher education should be for the nation’s elite students -- the top quarter of academic achievers -- and not for the masses. The Truman Commission, by comparison, asserted that nearly half the adult population could benefit from two years of postsecondary schooling and one-third from an “advanced liberal or specialized professional education” -- just about where we are as a nation today.
But perhaps the most blistering attack came from two of the commission’s own members, both of whom were leaders from Roman Catholic education. They argued that the commission’s exclusion of private colleges from the use of federal funds for current expenditures and capital outlays would lead to a “monopoly of tax funds for publicly controlled colleges and universities” -- a concern expressed in response to the Obama plan.
Many private institutions, they feared, could not compete with a free public sector. Small colleges would close, while a higher education landscape dominated by public institutions would be vulnerable to government control and propaganda, as in the “dictatorships of Germany, Italy and Japan.” Only the existence of private alternatives, free from government oversight, could assure the intellectual freedom that democracy needed to flourish. “American democracy,” they wrote, “will be best served if higher education in the future, as in the past, will continue to be regarded as a responsibility to be shared by public and private colleges and universities.”
Criticism of the Obama plan has followed similar contours. On the left, some worry that the money could be better targeted toward those who need it. On the right, others fear that a commitment to “free” public higher education is too great a fiscal burden to bear, or that a strong public sector will diminish “market” incentives. And, as was the case 60 years ago, commentators of various stripes have pointed out the obvious fact that the production of more college degrees, by itself, will not lead to better employment outcomes or alleviate social inequality.
These criticisms may have some merit, but they miss the larger point of the president’s forward-looking vision of college access. The members of the Truman Commission understood the value of making a powerful statement. During the commission’s second meeting, in December 1946, the philosopher Horace Kallen urged his colleagues to conceive of their report as a statement akin to the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution.
“We are starting,” he said, “as a deduction from the democratic position in the field of education, a certain conception of a standard of educational living. We can’t realize it all at once. Every step in the realization is going to be a fight, just as every step in the raising of the standard of living is going to be a fight.”
Indeed, in the spirit of the Truman Commission, the Obama plan renews the nation’s promise to provide educational opportunity to all who are willing to work for it. It serves as a reminder that education is not just a private benefit, open only to those who can afford it, but a public good worthy of investment. The promise of American higher education, after all, is about more than individual job preparation. It is about the possibility for all citizens to participate in envisioning and constructing a better society.
Nicholas Strohl is a Ph.D. candidate in history and educational policy studies at the University of Wisconsin at Madison. His dissertation is entitled “Higher Education and the Public Good: The Truman Commission and the Case for Universal College Access, 1918-1953.”
An experiment was conducted a few years back that offered participants the choice between a Lindt chocolate truffle and a Hershey’s Kiss. Each was available for an attractive price -- 15 cents for the truffle, a penny for the Kiss. Three out of four chose the truffle.
Then the researchers reduced the cost of each offering by a penny. The truffle was now 14 cents, the Kiss was free. Two out of three participants chose the Hershey’s Kiss. “Free” is a powerful word.
When President Obama unveiled a proposal last month to give every student in America the opportunity to attend community college free of charge, it naturally got our attention. From the kitchen table to the corridors of Congress, people were talking about it.
Essentially, the plan proposes that the federal government pay three-fourths of a student’s community college tuition if states agree to pay the remaining 25 percent. Community colleges must commit to taking steps to strengthen programs and increase graduation rates. Students must have skin in the game, too -- they must attend college at least half-time, while maintaining a minimum grade point average of 2.5.
Instantly, the plan ignited a debate over its merits. Some say the money shouldn’t be spent on tuition, but on removing obstacles that keep students from finishing community college and furthering their education. Others contend that the proposal is an important first step toward spurring college attendance and building bridges between two-year colleges and four-year institutions. And of course, countless other perspectives abound.
While the debate has yet to be resolved, it’s clear the president has already succeeded in one sense: he’s gotten the nation to pay attention to a critical and overlooked need.
The importance of a college education is hardly a new topic of conversation. The changing U.S. economy, rising competition for gainful employment and the growing complexity of a global society have made education a new national imperative. Yet the conversation has focused primarily on the importance of a four-year degree. Our money has followed this emphasis: public and private dollars are directed into four-year universities, which have become more difficult for students and parents to afford.
In this national dialogue, community colleges have been somewhat left behind. Their per-student expenditures lag well behind those at institutions offering four-year degrees and graduate education. Yet they enroll nearly half of all undergraduates in our country, providing a first step or a second chance toward a more rewarding life. Considering that the gap between rich and poor continues to widen, community colleges have never been more important to our nation’s future prosperity.
A 2013 Georgetown University study, “Failure to Launch,” illustrates why. The study found that only half of Americans in their late 20s are employed full-time, the lowest level since 1972. At the same time, “the increasing need for skill development after high school has delayed young adults’ careers.” This explains why the goalposts of individual sustainability keep moving. The average age for financial independence in the U.S. is now 30.
For a large cross section of our country, community colleges represent a way forward. But their role and value transcend a person’s ability to get ahead. They’re also crucial to America’s ability to compete in the world economy.
It is widely accepted that our nation needs to graduate significant numbers of professionals in science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) fields to ensure our future economic competitiveness. The critical role that community colleges play in achieving this goal is less known. The most recently compiled statistics from the National Science Foundation showed that 44 percent of the 126,000 men and women earning 4-year degrees in engineering attended community college at some point. For most, this was their first foray into higher education -- and they continued on. A National Student Clearinghouse Research Center study showed that nearly 75 percent of the students who earned an associate degree and then moved to a four‐year college graduated with a bachelor’s degree within four years of transferring.
Community college is also a particularly effective pathway for underrepresented minority STEM students. The 2006 National Survey of Recent College Graduates revealed that 64 percent of American Indians, 5 percent of African-Americans and 55 percent of Hispanic engineering B.S. and M.S. degree recipients attended community college before enrolling at a four-year college.
The National Action Council for Minorities in Engineering (NACME) has crafted a strategy to reinforce this pathway. The organization partners with four-year colleges and universities and provides transfer scholarships to students earning associate degrees in engineering-related fields. NACME is also part of a collaborative working to strengthen high school STEM education for underrepresented minorities. Currently, more than 30,000 students are enrolled in school-within-school Academies of Engineering to deepen their understanding of STEM areas.
All of these are reasons why President Obama’s plan deserves support. This is exactly the kind of thinking and practice our country needs to unlock the doors of opportunity for a new generation. The higher education enterprise and American society both stand to benefit in the long run. "Free" is indeed a powerful word. In considering and debating the president’s proposal, let’s free our minds of false assumption and open them to the possibility and potential of new approaches.
Gary May is dean of the College of Engineering at the Georgia Institute of Technology.
President Obama’s free community college proposal and college ratings initiatives promise to further the historic expansion of college access begun in 1965, when Congress created the Pell Grant Program, which pried open the doors of higher education to deserving but poor students.
But the administration’s chosen means to the praiseworthy end of further expanding college access do not fundamentally challenge inequality in higher education; instead, they reinforce our two-tiered and unequal system. Federal policy instead should encourage academically qualified, lower-income students to matriculate to selective, four-year colleges. A monetary rewards system (a Race to the Top for higher education) or statutory mandates could advance that objective.
The current proposals are inadequate means to the laudable end of increasing access for the disadvantaged for three main reasons. First, money is not enough to ensure the success of low-income and first-generation college students (an often overlooked group that it is good to see included in the administration’s proposals). A shortage of financial resources is an important part -- but just one dimension -- of the multifaceted challenges that hinder lower-income and first-generation students. These students not only face financial impediments, but also confront social and cultural challenges in higher education. They lack the parental support, social networks and human capital of wealthier students with college-educated parents. Students without family and social connections to the world of higher education often find it difficult to navigate collegiate life.
The majority of such students matriculate to two-year colleges. These campuses are literally and figuratively closer to home. At more selective institutions, the gulf between college and community life is greatest and the commitment to educating Pell Grant-eligible, first-generation students is less robust, judging from enrollment statistics. (Studies show that the most competitive colleges are the least likely to enroll Pell Grant students).
In effect, there are two vastly different systems of education: one for richer students from college-educated parents and another for poorer students from undereducated families.
But most community colleges are not equipped to provide the academic and social supports necessary for the success of the capable but needy students drawn to them -- the second flaw in the administration’s means to a worthy end. Reams of data have long documented the struggle of community colleges to deliver the quality education and additional support that students need. Teaching staffs at these colleges juggle heavy course loads and are responsible for hundreds of students, many of whom need remedial instruction in basic skills. Graduation rates at community colleges are meager. And, although many students enter community college with plans to transfer to four-year institutions, only one in five actually does.
In effect, there are two vastly different systems of education: one for richer students from college-educated parents and another for poorer students from undereducated families. Richer students overwhelmingly attend the nation’s selective colleges and universities, where admissions officials have their pick of applicants.
Poorer, first-generation students overwhelmingly attend community colleges. Even some poorer students who are academically qualified for far more competitive institutions choose community colleges -- a phenomenon called “undermatching.”
The administration’s proposals will not end these inequities and do not aspire to end them. The community college proposal is instead a concession to the inevitability of a two-tiered, separate and unequal, system and will reinforce the status quo, including undermatching.
To be clear, there certainly is a role for a strong community college system in the educational marketplace. For some students, two-year colleges are an appropriate choice. And the federal government should strengthen these institutions by increasing funding to them across the board. But it can reform the community college system without also enacting policies that funnel academically able, poorer students into two-year rather than four-year colleges. In other words, the federal government could increase allocations to community colleges and also promote greater access for lower-income students. It need not tether the latter policy objective to the former.
Given the well-known limitations of two-year colleges, my recent proposal to increase college access for Pell Grant-eligible, first-generation students promoted greater outreach by selective, four-year institutions of higher education. Selective is not synonymous with Ivy League; it includes the most competitive private colleges, cash-starved state-supported universities and lesser-known liberal arts colleges that specialize in a student-centered educational experience.
The best selective institutions invest in the success of all admitted students. These colleges award generous financial aid packages and provide institutional support ranging from dedicated personnel to enrichment classes and social clubs to acculturate students to college life and facilitate academic progress. These are the colleges that produce the greatest return on investment and can change the life trajectories of students from disadvantaged backgrounds. Federal policy should encourage academically qualified, lower-income students to matriculate to selective colleges through monetary rewards or statutory mandates (as I will explain below).
The third challenge in the administration’s proposals pertains to its rating system, which is neither a necessary nor sufficient means to the government’s ends. Ratings alone are unlikely to substantially increase college access for Pell Grant-eligible, first-generation students. Identifying the colleges that are the least successful at providing access is an important initial step, one that I have advocated. The proposed ratings will help diagnose the nature of the access problem for economically and educationally disadvantaged students. However, different incentives are necessary to spur corrective action.
The federal government can incentivize access for lower-income students at selective institutions in one of two ways. One type of incentive would work by conferring a reward on the institution for increasing access for the disadvantaged. The federal government could create a system of competitive grants and award additional federal dollars to colleges that enroll and provide effective support programs to a minimum percentage of Pell Grant-eligible and first-generation students. In other words, it could launch for higher education an analogue to the Race to the Top program established in 2009 to spur innovation in K-12 education.
The Obama administration reportedly plans to connect high ratings in its new system to additional federal funding. But judging from the tremendous pushback against the ratings system, its future is doubtful. And it is unnecessary to effect change. The government can promise more money to colleges that enroll a minimum number of low-income students without implementing a ratings plan.
A different kind of incentive program might work by imposing a penalty for noncompliance. Just as the nation once mandated race- and sex-based integration of colleges and universities, Congress and the Department of Education can compel the economic integration of America’s college campuses. The government could mandate, for example, that colleges receiving Higher Education Act funds admit and fund a minimum percentage of low-income, first-generation students or risk losing federal funds.
This kind of mandate would function like Title VI of the Civil Rights Act or Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which require federally assisted programs to meet certain nondiscrimination requirements. Statutory mandates not only have been used to integrate colleges and secondary schools, but to increase the number of girls and women who participate in competitive sports programs, and, most recently, to mandate compliance with new substantive legal standards on campus sexual harassment and sexual assault.
Greater college access for qualified but needy students also could be achieved through federal statutory mandates. Whether this approach can serve as a viable avenue to reform is no doubt uncertain, however, given Congressional gridlock and ideological resistance to federal mandates.
Whatever else it does, the government should promote true equality of opportunity in higher education. It should neither prop up our two-tier system nor view the problem of unequal access to college as primarily a money problem. A reward or mandate system should be implemented to encourage federally assisted colleges -- especially cash-starved, selective, four-year public universities -- to educate greater numbers of qualified, disadvantaged students. Federal policy should not reinforce class stratification in higher education.
Tomiko Brown-Nagin is the Daniel P. S. Paul Professor of Constitutional Law and a professor of history at Harvard University.
Florida is one of several states where legislatures are exploring dramatic approaches to reforming developmental (remedial) education.
A high percentage of students who enroll at the 28 state colleges (formerly the community colleges) in the Florida College System have remedial needs, and only a small fraction of those students actually earn college credentials.
To try to combat this problem, the state’s Legislature in 2013 passed a new law mandating that the 28 state colleges provide developmental education that is more tailored to the needs of students. As reported earlier by Inside Higher Ed, the policy gives students much more flexibility in terms of whether they participate in developmental education and what options they choose if they do decide to participate.
Some concerns have emerged since the Florida reform was implemented in the fall of 2014. For example, The Chronicle of Higher Educationdescribed “headaches” such as a drastic decline in students enrolling in developmental education courses, challenges faculty members face and other issues regarding student decisions and choices.
It’s clear that the state’s developmental policy reform could have a long-lasting influence on student success in Florida and beyond. The Florida reform would be particularly relevant if the proposal of two years of free community college by President Obama ever becomes a reality. To learn more about it, the Center for Postsecondary Success (CPS) at Florida State University has been conducting a comprehensive evaluation of the implementation and effects of the policy.
The Florida Experiment
The law drastically changes the placement and instructional practices in developmental education. It prohibits requiring placement testing or developmental education for students who entered ninth grade in a Florida public school in the 2003-2004 school year and after, provided the student earned a standard high school diploma. The law also exempts active-duty members of the military from required placement testing and developmental coursework. It does, however, allow exempted students to choose to be tested and/or to take developmental education once advised of their options.
Students now have several new options in terms of developmental education delivery methods that are designed to move them quickly into college credit, using corequisite instruction, modules and tutoring. The new strategies include: (1) modularized instruction that is customized and targeted to address specific skills gaps; (2) compressed course structures that accelerate student progression from developmental instruction to college-level coursework; (3) contextualized developmental instruction that is related to metamajors (a collection of programs of study or academic discipline groupings that share common foundational skills); and (4) corequisite developmental instruction or tutoring that supplements credit instruction while a student is concurrently enrolled in a credit-bearing course.
The legislation does not mandate the specifics around each option and therefore allows the individual campuses in the system some flexibility in regard to the form and delivery of each option.
Challenges and Opportunities
The reform strategies underway are sweeping.
Because a key intent of the reform is to provide greater flexibility in determining who needs to take developmental education courses, it is not surprising to observe a sizable drop-off in students enrolling in them. The drop-off itself may not necessarily become a concern for some students, but we will need to closely monitor those who choose not to opt in to developmental education programs to determine their outcomes compared to those who did.
Research has indicated that developmental education may not be that helpful for borderline students, thus suggesting flexible placement may increase student success by not holding back students just shy of the cut score. However, a large number of students who would have scored far below traditional cutoff scores and instead opt in to college-level courses may present new and difficult challenges to institutions and instructors, and may also jeopardize students’ chances of succeeding in college. Such a scenario could be compounded depending on how students of different backgrounds make decisions.
While some perceive the increased student choice to be positive, others question whether developmental education students have the preparation and wisdom to make informed choices about course options. Students, though, generally appreciate the increased choice provided by the legislation but questioned whether other students would always make the appropriate decisions. Colleges and universities have ramped up advising and student support services, which could be key to student success and the reform as a whole. Advising students to make the “good” choice, and students following the advice properly, will be critical to student success in this new policy environment. Meanwhile, providing the necessary support to students along the way is important to sustain student success.
With greater flexibility in placement, the developmental education reform could alter the composition of classrooms across college campuses, possibly also shaping the structure and culture of teaching and learning on campus due to the wider range of student academic preparation in both developmental and college-level classes. The voices of faculty have indicated this is the case. A promising sign is that faculty members are designing customized instruction tailored to students based on their assessment of student preparation. This is consistent with the substantial literature on effective teaching and learning by meeting the needs of learners. Of course, this customization increases the work of faculty members, but if there is a way to support faculty adaptation to the new classroom reality, student success may be well in reach.
In anticipation of both student and faculty concerns, most campuses planned to increase the student support services they provide. A content analysis of the 28 implementation plans indicated that the colleges planned to ramp up advising as well as extensive training and professional development for front-line personnel. In addition, support services such as tutoring and success courses are widely considered in colleges’ implementation plans.
An earlier survey of college administrators also indicated a whole-campus approach in implementing the new policy. There is a fairly wide agreement that the reform reflects a spirit of innovation and offers an opportunity to solve an old problem in new ways, and colleges mobilized to respond to the new law and increased intra-institutional collaboration in developing strategies. Each campus has an implementation team that includes the key constituents on campus so that perspectives from all can be shared and considered.
Learning From the Experiences
The Florida experiment is a state response to a persistent problem. It marks a drastic departure from the traditional developmental education model that has not been working well. The “headaches” reported in The Chronicle from the early stage of implementation are not unexpected. However, the issues raised should not be ignored. In fact, we should keep close eyes on those issues and student outcomes.
The law allows institutions to be responsive to their individual student populations. But because there are variations in institutional reality based on student characteristics, infrastructure and previous experiences with developmental education, some colleges may be ahead of the game while others may be struggling to catch up, resulting in different reactions to the reform. While some colleges embrace it, others may have some reservations. The state and other interested parties should provide assistance to help struggling colleges to get up to speed.
The success of the reform depends on a multitude of players and factors. It depends on students to make the right decisions for themselves; it depends on practitioners and administrators to successfully rally the troops on the ground to implement the critical components called for by the new law; it depends on faculty members to deliver courses that meet student needs; it depends on advisers to effectively advise students and support services staff members to provide timely and needed support to the students along the way; it also depends on policy makers to create favorable policy environments for those on the ground to do the work at the best of their expertise and capacity.
The bold reform strategies in developmental education in Florida could blaze a new trail, or offer states valuable lessons. It is easy to point fingers to K-12 education for the lack of preparation of college students. While it is important to continue to improve the quality of K-12 education for all students, it is also important to consider the ways the higher education system can improve student success. Given the nature of the reform and the multiplicity of issues, strong and sustainable leadership at both the state and campus level is required in order for the reform to stand a chance of delivering results. At least six steps appear to be warranted to determine whether such a broad reform is capable of achieving its intended outcome.
First, as for any policy change, it will take time to see results. Is there willingness to wait for a period of time to see the impacts of the current policy changes on student success, given the likely pressures from various sources? If not, we may never know whether such a reform is able to deliver.
Second, to assess the impact of the reform on students and continuously improve the policy, there is a need for credible evidence. The research community needs to contribute to the conversation by conducting valid research to understand the perspectives from all concerned and affected, and assess the impact of the new policy on outcomes related to student success.
Third, practitioners and administrators need to be open-minded and provide feedback on what works and what may be needed on the ground. On the one hand, they need to challenge conventional practices that have been in place for a long time. Fortunately, the early signs indicate they indeed embrace the idea of innovation. On the other hand, they should demand the support they need to ensure the new initiatives will be successfully put in place.
Fourth, policy makers should use the evidence and results to guide the policy-making and -remaking process. Just as practitioners within community colleges need to be open-minded in implementing reform, policy makers need to be open-minded and honestly consider feedback to adjust the policy accordingly.
Fifth, funding agencies should be keenly attentive to what is really going on in educational reform and put their resources behind research on real-world problems. Instead of waiting for perfect research, they should strike a good balance in pursuing the rigor and relevance of the research to promptly respond to the needs on the ground. Otherwise, they may end up being empty-handed in the pursuit of connecting research, policy and practice.
Finally, credible and timely research has the potential to generate valuable evidence to inform policy and practice, and it can be accomplished by collaboration among researchers, practitioners, state agencies and funding organizations. After all, it is our shared responsibility to optimize the educational environment so that our students can succeed, reach their full potential and realize their dreams.
Shouping Hu is the Louis W. and Elizabeth N. Bender Endowed Professor and the founding director of the Center for Postsecondary Success (CPS) at Florida State University.