Ideal # 4: Everyone has a right to 16 years of education Let the questions begin!
- Is there an age limit to this right? For instance, 30, 50, 70?
- How is the “right” realized? Through free tuition?Through a stipend?
- Is there a course/training load required to activate the right?
- Are there performance requirements to maintain the right?
- How would training and classes be counted towards the time limit for the right? For instance, brief, intensive training, like coding “boot camps”, where the content is taught in only a few months but would have taken much longer to teach in a traditional institution, like a community college.
- What types of training or education would count as part of the right, and what types (if any) would be excluded? For instance, classes in flower design or public speaking.
- Will a documented labor market be required for the type of training, education, degree or certificate that is covered by the right?
- What establishments would count as providers of education and training covered by the right?
- Could the right be suspended in cases where beneficiaries abuse it? For instance, enrolling to get a stipend, then dropping the classes later.
- What safeguards would be put into effect to minimize potentially harmful effects of the right? For instance, lower persistence/completion rates or lackadaisical campus culture.
The inspiration for question #10 came from a 2007 paper by Nancy Shulock and Colleen Moore about the unintended consequences of fee waivers at California Community Colleges. To quote: “Reflecting a priority on access, student fees are the lowest in the nation by far…. Student fee and aid policy encourages students to: 1) enroll in courses without much forethought, and 2) add and drop courses repeatedly without financial consequence [behaviors negatively correlated with completion]. Because access to the CCC (California Community Colleges) has been historically framed around low fees, financial aid policy has emphasized low fees and fee waivers, rather than overall college affordability. This gives students a false sense of opportunity since fees account for only 5% to 7% of the total cost of college attendance…” (Items like room, board, textbooks, childcare, and transportation are more significant than fees for most community college students in California.)
Shulock and Moore’s recommendations: “As part of the effort to give colleges more tools to manage their finances in the interest of student success, and to encourage successful student behaviors like timely enrollment, the prohibition against campus-based fees should be removed and college officials should be allowed to make those decisions locally.” Basically they’re saying that adult students need to pay something to be more serious about their education.
As it turns out, the Shulock-Moore research actually influenced education policy in California. A 2016 report by the California Community Colleges Board of Governors notes that while California’s broadly used fee waiver program “can increase access for needy students, it may not be sufficient to encourage behaviors critical to student success.” Their recommendation that academic standards be stricter for fee waiver recipients is being implemented in late 2016.
Morale to the story: increasing access to college may undermine success in college if strict conditions are not attached. Think about that when considering the right to 16 years of education.
References:
Shulock, N. and Moore, C. (2007, October). Invest in Success: How Finance Policy Can Increase Student Success at California’s Community Colleges. Sacramento, CA: Institute for Higher Education Leadership & Policy, CSUS.
Fisher, Stacy B. The California Community Colleges Board of Governors Fee Waiver: A Comparison of State Aid Program January 19, 2016; California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office