On November 19, a public hearing on the State Plan for Higher Education will be hosted by the Maryland Higher Education Commission. The Maryland Higher Education Commission serves as the coordinating body of higher education in the State, guiding community colleges, private institutions, and public institutions. Check out the MHEC website announcement and the draft document up for comment.
Showing posts with label MHEC. Show all posts
Showing posts with label MHEC. Show all posts
11.13.2008
MHEC Hearing in State Plan on Higher Education, Nov. 19
10.28.2008
HBCU Funding Report
The Commission to Develop the Maryland Model for Funding Higher Education, commonly referred to as the "Bohanan Commission" presented the final draft of the contracted report on funding for historically black colleges and universities (HCBUs) in Maryland. The four HBCUs in Maryland are University of Maryland, Eastern Shore, Coppin State University, Bowie State University, and Morgan State University. All but Morgan are member institutions of the University System of Maryland.
The report highlights studied undergraduate education, graduate education, and capacity of facilities within its report. Generally, the report found that HBCUs need more funding and support if they are to maintain their unique "dual mission" of 1) serving disadvantaged student populations, and 2) maintaining and expanding high quality academic programs. The report defines the standard of measure to me "similarity of outcomes," meaning that funding guidelines should be established to assist HBCUs to reach similar graduation rates, retention rates, and attainment levels.
After a cursory review of the report, I had a few concerns. First, I disagreed with the assessment that HBCUs should take the primary role in serving disadvantaged students, over community colleges (pages 6 and 7). We must ask whether students who are not ready for four-year college after high school should be remediated in public four-year institutions at a high cost, or at community colleges which are in the business of remedial and supplementary education. I do believe, though, that HBCUs play a prominent role in partnership with community colleges in serving disadvantaged students, possibly through expanded 2+2 program partnerships.
I also was struck by the expectation that HBCUs serve as both access and high quality institutions. From my perspective, most all other institutions fall on the spectrum of access and high-quality, atleast across Maryland. In other words, top-notch academic programs in Maryland are often housed at more rigorous institutions such as UMCP, Salisbury, and UMBC. More access oriented institutions, such as Frostburg, UMUC, and UB (undergrad), focus more on supporting students in their academic tenure. I question whether delineation of focus for HBCUs might be a more worthwhile approach. In other words, should not Morgan and UMES focus on high rigor academic programs, and Bowie and Coppin focus more on broad access, or some other more fitting arrangement..
Another issues of concern to me in the report is the lack of conversation about the political and decision-making structure of higher education in Maryland. The report highlights a lack of strategic planning for Morgan in the State (page 19), but makes no mention of its independent governing structure outside of the University System of Maryland. The report also neglects to address the lack of political independence of the "coordinating arm" of higher education, in which the Secretary of Higher Education reports directly to the Governor and not the Maryland Higher Education Commission.
Finally, I found the lack of detail regarding specific funding levels surprising. While some mention is found in the appendix of funding levels from the state and from tuition, the lack of study on this issue is concerning. The premise of the report is that more money is needed to make outputs more equitable; yet, the report simply assumes that more money will solve the problem. The report talks very little of the impact that increased funding has had on HBCUs in advancement over the past two decades. Possibly such an analysis would lead to meaningful suggestions as to how much more money is needed to raise outcomes at HBCUs.
For those interested in learning more about what the Supreme Court has to say on these issues, check out US. v. Fordice (1992) (full text / Oyez Summary). Also, see the article highlighting the report in the Baltimore Sun today.
The report highlights studied undergraduate education, graduate education, and capacity of facilities within its report. Generally, the report found that HBCUs need more funding and support if they are to maintain their unique "dual mission" of 1) serving disadvantaged student populations, and 2) maintaining and expanding high quality academic programs. The report defines the standard of measure to me "similarity of outcomes," meaning that funding guidelines should be established to assist HBCUs to reach similar graduation rates, retention rates, and attainment levels.
After a cursory review of the report, I had a few concerns. First, I disagreed with the assessment that HBCUs should take the primary role in serving disadvantaged students, over community colleges (pages 6 and 7). We must ask whether students who are not ready for four-year college after high school should be remediated in public four-year institutions at a high cost, or at community colleges which are in the business of remedial and supplementary education. I do believe, though, that HBCUs play a prominent role in partnership with community colleges in serving disadvantaged students, possibly through expanded 2+2 program partnerships.
I also was struck by the expectation that HBCUs serve as both access and high quality institutions. From my perspective, most all other institutions fall on the spectrum of access and high-quality, atleast across Maryland. In other words, top-notch academic programs in Maryland are often housed at more rigorous institutions such as UMCP, Salisbury, and UMBC. More access oriented institutions, such as Frostburg, UMUC, and UB (undergrad), focus more on supporting students in their academic tenure. I question whether delineation of focus for HBCUs might be a more worthwhile approach. In other words, should not Morgan and UMES focus on high rigor academic programs, and Bowie and Coppin focus more on broad access, or some other more fitting arrangement..
Another issues of concern to me in the report is the lack of conversation about the political and decision-making structure of higher education in Maryland. The report highlights a lack of strategic planning for Morgan in the State (page 19), but makes no mention of its independent governing structure outside of the University System of Maryland. The report also neglects to address the lack of political independence of the "coordinating arm" of higher education, in which the Secretary of Higher Education reports directly to the Governor and not the Maryland Higher Education Commission.
Finally, I found the lack of detail regarding specific funding levels surprising. While some mention is found in the appendix of funding levels from the state and from tuition, the lack of study on this issue is concerning. The premise of the report is that more money is needed to make outputs more equitable; yet, the report simply assumes that more money will solve the problem. The report talks very little of the impact that increased funding has had on HBCUs in advancement over the past two decades. Possibly such an analysis would lead to meaningful suggestions as to how much more money is needed to raise outcomes at HBCUs.
For those interested in learning more about what the Supreme Court has to say on these issues, check out US. v. Fordice (1992) (full text / Oyez Summary). Also, see the article highlighting the report in the Baltimore Sun today.
10.03.2008
Becoming a Teacher in USM Schools
Yesterday, the Board of Regents Education Policy Committee reviewed and endorsed the Teacher Shortage Task Force Report 2008. Regent Florestano co-chaired the task force. Issues addressed in this report are close to home for me because I am enrolled in a teacher certification program at UMBC, but the issues addressed have broad effects on each of us and our future.
While some of us may not attribute or success to our K-12 teachers, most would agree that we would not be in college had we not recieved a quality education in elementary, middle, and high school. Our families rely on good schools, and our State relies on a constant pipeline of well-educated children. So what's the current problem?
- in 2005, Maryland colleges trained only 33% of newly hired teachers in Maryland
- 50% of teachers leave after five years in the profession
- recruitment of a new teacher costs public schools on average $78,750
- 50% of students who graduate from teacher education programs never teach
The USM controls much of the pipeline of teachers. And while much support is needed from the State, our institutions control the capacity and direct incentives for students enrolling in teacher education programs.
Here are some notes that I took when reading the report:
Where do we go from here? How do we recruit more teachers? What would convince you to enter a teacher education program and then become a teacher?
While some of us may not attribute or success to our K-12 teachers, most would agree that we would not be in college had we not recieved a quality education in elementary, middle, and high school. Our families rely on good schools, and our State relies on a constant pipeline of well-educated children. So what's the current problem?
- in 2005, Maryland colleges trained only 33% of newly hired teachers in Maryland
- 50% of teachers leave after five years in the profession
- recruitment of a new teacher costs public schools on average $78,750
- 50% of students who graduate from teacher education programs never teach
The USM controls much of the pipeline of teachers. And while much support is needed from the State, our institutions control the capacity and direct incentives for students enrolling in teacher education programs.
Here are some notes that I took when reading the report:
Other questions:
- What are target goals for teacher production and retention? Who makes these targets if we do end up making them?
- What are the qualifying scores of nearby states for Praxis I & II? What is the data that is driving recommendation number two? Are students not passing tests coming from our programs? It seems like we can maintain high standards if we simply train and support more of our teachers.
- What are funds used for in PDS partnerships?
- What “career-advancement” steps exist for teachers who chose to stay in the classroom? Are these adequate?
- Are any programs providing training for urban classrooms as to better prepare teachers for the unique challenges specifically in many schools in Baltimore City, Baltimore County, and Prince George’s County?
Incentives: The report seemed light on recommendations for specific salary-based incentives. I am wondering how much consideration should be given to incentives for teachers who teach at Title I schools and teachers who teach in high-needs subject areas.
Data: I am so glad that this was brought up. A major problem beyond the data we do not have is who reviews the data that we do have? And what actions are made upon these. For instance, who tracks the number of graduates that are produced from each school? How are these incentivized?
Teacher Education Programs: Being in a teacher preparation program, I have seen so many individuals drop out of the program. While I am mostly versed in education at UMBC, I have some concerns about policies and procedures that seem to be broad-based:
- Site-based learning has become a critical part to earlier parts of education coursework, but transportation and time has become an issue for students; students do not have the time built into their schedules to perform these service hours and also sometimes do not have transportation.
- Students are very frustrated when they pay full tuition during their Phase II internship and are working full-time. Further, many faculty encourage students not to work outside of teaching and explain that they should “save up.” At the very least, universities should explore tuition remission during the Phase II semester.
- Schools should review when students are recruited to begin teacher education courses. At some schools, students are “discouraged” from taking education courses until, at the earliest, their sophomore year. Teacher education must get on the “map” for students in planning, and their must be opportunities for students to jump on the teacher bandwagon early.
- Because teacher education plans are so rigid, review of the schedule of courses should be had at each institution to ensure that students can take courses in both the spring and fall semesters. Additionally, it should be considered whether Phase I can be moved to the spring and Phase II to the following fall.
Where do we go from here? How do we recruit more teachers? What would convince you to enter a teacher education program and then become a teacher?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
