Education Dept. Tells Ratings Skeptics Their Concerns Are Valid
This from the Chronicle of Higher Education:
A key Education Department official said on Tuesday that she shared education researchers’ concerns about the potential unintended consequences of a federal college-ratings system.
Responding to several studies presented at a Congressional briefing she attended, the official, Deputy Under Secretary Jamienne S. Studley, said the researchers had raised "very appropriate" questions about the risk that college ratings could inadvertently harm minority students and the institutions that serve them.
"The conversations we are having [at the department] are eerily similar to the one I’ve heard this morning," she said. She also outlined her "own test of success" for the ratings: Will they recognize institutions that do a better-than-expected job of graduating low-income, first-generation, and minority students?
The proposed ratings system, due this fall, will judge colleges based on measures of access, affordability, and student outcomes, and could eventually allocate federal aid based on those ratings.
Officials in the Obama administration, including the secretary of education, Arne Duncan, have repeatedly sought to reassure skeptics that the department is taking pains to craft a system that takes students’ demographics and academic preparation into account.
At the briefing, organized by the Civil Rights Project at the University of California at Los Angeles, Ms. Studley—who has helped lead efforts to craft the ratings—said officials were considering metrics that would weigh the different student bodies that institutions serve. Those factors could include students’ ZIP codes, the high schools they attended, and whether they have first-generation status.
She promised that the system would reward a "trajectory of improvement" and not simply punish poorly performing institutions. "Our objective is not to eliminate," she said. "It’s to improve." And she hinted that the administration might consider creating two separate ratings, with different metrics—one to create accountability and one to inform consumers.
But she urged the researchers to keep an open mind about federal ratings, asking them to "consider the positive side" of "reinforcing resources" at highly rated institutions.
Gary Orfield, co-director of the UCLA Civil Rights Project, said the briefing, titled "Do Higher Ed Accountability Proposals Narrow Opportunity for Minority Students and Minority-Serving Institutions?," was not intended as "an attack on the Obama administration" but as a way to contribute to discussion over the ratings.
He urged lobbyists and Congressional aides in the audience to join that debate, warning of the perils of "enacting sound bites."
"This is a very high-stakes set of issues," he said, "that will determine the fate of institutions and students."
Education Dept. Tells Ratings Skeptics Their Concerns Are Valid
September 02, 2014
Washington
A key Education Department official said on Tuesday that she shared education researchers’ concerns about the potential unintended consequences of a federal college-ratings system.
Responding to several studies presented at a Congressional briefing she attended, the official, Deputy Under Secretary Jamienne S. Studley, said the researchers had raised "very appropriate" questions about the risk that college ratings could inadvertently harm minority students and the institutions that serve them.
"The conversations we are having [at the department] are eerily similar to the one I’ve heard this morning," she said. She also outlined her "own test of success" for the ratings: Will they recognize institutions that do a better-than-expected job of graduating low-income, first-generation, and minority students?
The proposed ratings system, due this fall, will judge colleges based on measures of access, affordability, and student outcomes, and could eventually allocate federal aid based on those ratings.
Officials in the Obama administration, including the secretary of education, Arne Duncan, have repeatedly sought to reassure skeptics that the department is taking pains to craft a system that takes students’ demographics and academic preparation into account.
At the briefing, organized by the Civil Rights Project at the University of California at Los Angeles, Ms. Studley—who has helped lead efforts to craft the ratings—said officials were considering metrics that would weigh the different student bodies that institutions serve. Those factors could include students’ ZIP codes, the high schools they attended, and whether they have first-generation status.
She promised that the system would reward a "trajectory of improvement" and not simply punish poorly performing institutions. "Our objective is not to eliminate," she said. "It’s to improve." And she hinted that the administration might consider creating two separate ratings, with different metrics—one to create accountability and one to inform consumers.
But she urged the researchers to keep an open mind about federal ratings, asking them to "consider the positive side" of "reinforcing resources" at highly rated institutions.
Gary Orfield, co-director of the UCLA Civil Rights Project, said the briefing, titled "Do Higher Ed Accountability Proposals Narrow Opportunity for Minority Students and Minority-Serving Institutions?," was not intended as "an attack on the Obama administration" but as a way to contribute to discussion over the ratings.
He urged lobbyists and Congressional aides in the audience to join that debate, warning of the perils of "enacting sound bites."
"This is a very high-stakes set of issues," he said, "that will determine the fate of institutions and students."
Responding to several studies presented at a Congressional briefing she attended, the official, Deputy Under Secretary Jamienne S. Studley, said the researchers had raised "very appropriate" questions about the risk that college ratings could inadvertently harm minority students and the institutions that serve them.
"The conversations we are having [at the department] are eerily similar to the one I’ve heard this morning," she said. She also outlined her "own test of success" for the ratings: Will they recognize institutions that do a better-than-expected job of graduating low-income, first-generation, and minority students?
The proposed ratings system, due this fall, will judge colleges based on measures of access, affordability, and student outcomes, and could eventually allocate federal aid based on those ratings.
Officials in the Obama administration, including the secretary of education, Arne Duncan, have repeatedly sought to reassure skeptics that the department is taking pains to craft a system that takes students’ demographics and academic preparation into account.
At the briefing, organized by the Civil Rights Project at the University of California at Los Angeles, Ms. Studley—who has helped lead efforts to craft the ratings—said officials were considering metrics that would weigh the different student bodies that institutions serve. Those factors could include students’ ZIP codes, the high schools they attended, and whether they have first-generation status.
She promised that the system would reward a "trajectory of improvement" and not simply punish poorly performing institutions. "Our objective is not to eliminate," she said. "It’s to improve." And she hinted that the administration might consider creating two separate ratings, with different metrics—one to create accountability and one to inform consumers.
But she urged the researchers to keep an open mind about federal ratings, asking them to "consider the positive side" of "reinforcing resources" at highly rated institutions.
Gary Orfield, co-director of the UCLA Civil Rights Project, said the briefing, titled "Do Higher Ed Accountability Proposals Narrow Opportunity for Minority Students and Minority-Serving Institutions?," was not intended as "an attack on the Obama administration" but as a way to contribute to discussion over the ratings.
He urged lobbyists and Congressional aides in the audience to join that debate, warning of the perils of "enacting sound bites."
"This is a very high-stakes set of issues," he said, "that will determine the fate of institutions and students."
Education Dept. Tells Ratings Skeptics Their Concerns
Are Valid
By Kelly Field
September 02, 2014
Washington
A key Education Department official
said on Tuesday that she shared education researchers’ concerns about the
potential unintended consequences of a federal college-ratings system.
Responding to several studies
presented at a Congressional briefing she attended, the official, Deputy Under
Secretary Jamienne S. Studley, said the researchers had raised "very
appropriate" questions about the risk that college ratings could
inadvertently harm minority students and the institutions that serve them.
"The conversations we are
having [at the department] are eerily similar to the one I’ve heard this
morning," she said. She also outlined her "own test of success"
for the ratings: Will they recognize institutions that do a
better-than-expected job of graduating low-income, first-generation, and
minority students?
The proposed ratings system, due
this fall, will judge colleges based on measures of access, affordability, and
student outcomes, and could eventually allocate federal aid based on those
ratings.
Officials in the Obama
administration, including the secretary of education, Arne Duncan, have
repeatedly sought to reassure skeptics that the department is taking pains to
craft a system that takes students’ demographics and academic preparation into
account.
At the briefing, organized by the
Civil Rights Project at the University of California at Los Angeles, Ms.
Studley—who has helped lead efforts to craft the ratings—said officials were
considering metrics that would weigh the different student bodies that
institutions serve. Those factors could include students’ ZIP codes, the high
schools they attended, and whether they have first-generation status.
She promised that the system would
reward a "trajectory of improvement" and not simply punish poorly
performing institutions. "Our objective is not to eliminate," she
said. "It’s to improve." And she hinted that the administration might
consider creating two separate ratings, with different metrics—one to create
accountability and one to inform consumers.
But she urged the researchers to
keep an open mind about federal ratings, asking them to "consider the
positive side" of "reinforcing resources" at highly rated
institutions.
Gary Orfield, co-director of the
UCLA Civil Rights Project, said the briefing, titled "Do Higher Ed
Accountability Proposals Narrow Opportunity for Minority Students and
Minority-Serving Institutions?," was not intended as "an attack on
the Obama administration" but as a way to contribute to discussion over
the ratings.
He urged lobbyists and Congressional
aides in the audience to join that debate, warning of the perils of
"enacting sound bites."
"This is a very high-stakes set
of issues," he said, "that will determine the fate of institutions
and students."
Education Dept. Tells Ratings Skeptics Their Concerns Are Valid
September 02, 2014
Washington
A key Education Department official said on Tuesday that she shared education researchers’ concerns about the potential unintended consequences of a federal college-ratings system.
Responding to several studies presented at a Congressional briefing she attended, the official, Deputy Under Secretary Jamienne S. Studley, said the researchers had raised "very appropriate" questions about the risk that college ratings could inadvertently harm minority students and the institutions that serve them.
"The conversations we are having [at the department] are eerily similar to the one I’ve heard this morning," she said. She also outlined her "own test of success" for the ratings: Will they recognize institutions that do a better-than-expected job of graduating low-income, first-generation, and minority students?
The proposed ratings system, due this fall, will judge colleges based on measures of access, affordability, and student outcomes, and could eventually allocate federal aid based on those ratings.
Officials in the Obama administration, including the secretary of education, Arne Duncan, have repeatedly sought to reassure skeptics that the department is taking pains to craft a system that takes students’ demographics and academic preparation into account.
At the briefing, organized by the Civil Rights Project at the University of California at Los Angeles, Ms. Studley—who has helped lead efforts to craft the ratings—said officials were considering metrics that would weigh the different student bodies that institutions serve. Those factors could include students’ ZIP codes, the high schools they attended, and whether they have first-generation status.
She promised that the system would reward a "trajectory of improvement" and not simply punish poorly performing institutions. "Our objective is not to eliminate," she said. "It’s to improve." And she hinted that the administration might consider creating two separate ratings, with different metrics—one to create accountability and one to inform consumers.
But she urged the researchers to keep an open mind about federal ratings, asking them to "consider the positive side" of "reinforcing resources" at highly rated institutions.
Gary Orfield, co-director of the UCLA Civil Rights Project, said the briefing, titled "Do Higher Ed Accountability Proposals Narrow Opportunity for Minority Students and Minority-Serving Institutions?," was not intended as "an attack on the Obama administration" but as a way to contribute to discussion over the ratings.
He urged lobbyists and Congressional aides in the audience to join that debate, warning of the perils of "enacting sound bites."
"This is a very high-stakes set of issues," he said, "that will determine the fate of institutions and students."
- See more at: http://m.chronicle.com/article/Education-Dept-Tells-Ratings/148587/#sthash.4m2U8eyB.dpufResponding to several studies presented at a Congressional briefing she attended, the official, Deputy Under Secretary Jamienne S. Studley, said the researchers had raised "very appropriate" questions about the risk that college ratings could inadvertently harm minority students and the institutions that serve them.
"The conversations we are having [at the department] are eerily similar to the one I’ve heard this morning," she said. She also outlined her "own test of success" for the ratings: Will they recognize institutions that do a better-than-expected job of graduating low-income, first-generation, and minority students?
The proposed ratings system, due this fall, will judge colleges based on measures of access, affordability, and student outcomes, and could eventually allocate federal aid based on those ratings.
Officials in the Obama administration, including the secretary of education, Arne Duncan, have repeatedly sought to reassure skeptics that the department is taking pains to craft a system that takes students’ demographics and academic preparation into account.
At the briefing, organized by the Civil Rights Project at the University of California at Los Angeles, Ms. Studley—who has helped lead efforts to craft the ratings—said officials were considering metrics that would weigh the different student bodies that institutions serve. Those factors could include students’ ZIP codes, the high schools they attended, and whether they have first-generation status.
She promised that the system would reward a "trajectory of improvement" and not simply punish poorly performing institutions. "Our objective is not to eliminate," she said. "It’s to improve." And she hinted that the administration might consider creating two separate ratings, with different metrics—one to create accountability and one to inform consumers.
But she urged the researchers to keep an open mind about federal ratings, asking them to "consider the positive side" of "reinforcing resources" at highly rated institutions.
Gary Orfield, co-director of the UCLA Civil Rights Project, said the briefing, titled "Do Higher Ed Accountability Proposals Narrow Opportunity for Minority Students and Minority-Serving Institutions?," was not intended as "an attack on the Obama administration" but as a way to contribute to discussion over the ratings.
He urged lobbyists and Congressional aides in the audience to join that debate, warning of the perils of "enacting sound bites."
"This is a very high-stakes set of issues," he said, "that will determine the fate of institutions and students."
Education Dept. Tells Ratings Skeptics Their Concerns Are Valid
September 02, 2014
Washington
A key Education Department official said on Tuesday that she shared education researchers’ concerns about the potential unintended consequences of a federal college-ratings system.
Responding to several studies presented at a Congressional briefing she attended, the official, Deputy Under Secretary Jamienne S. Studley, said the researchers had raised "very appropriate" questions about the risk that college ratings could inadvertently harm minority students and the institutions that serve them.
"The conversations we are having [at the department] are eerily similar to the one I’ve heard this morning," she said. She also outlined her "own test of success" for the ratings: Will they recognize institutions that do a better-than-expected job of graduating low-income, first-generation, and minority students?
The proposed ratings system, due this fall, will judge colleges based on measures of access, affordability, and student outcomes, and could eventually allocate federal aid based on those ratings.
Officials in the Obama administration, including the secretary of education, Arne Duncan, have repeatedly sought to reassure skeptics that the department is taking pains to craft a system that takes students’ demographics and academic preparation into account.
At the briefing, organized by the Civil Rights Project at the University of California at Los Angeles, Ms. Studley—who has helped lead efforts to craft the ratings—said officials were considering metrics that would weigh the different student bodies that institutions serve. Those factors could include students’ ZIP codes, the high schools they attended, and whether they have first-generation status.
She promised that the system would reward a "trajectory of improvement" and not simply punish poorly performing institutions. "Our objective is not to eliminate," she said. "It’s to improve." And she hinted that the administration might consider creating two separate ratings, with different metrics—one to create accountability and one to inform consumers.
But she urged the researchers to keep an open mind about federal ratings, asking them to "consider the positive side" of "reinforcing resources" at highly rated institutions.
Gary Orfield, co-director of the UCLA Civil Rights Project, said the briefing, titled "Do Higher Ed Accountability Proposals Narrow Opportunity for Minority Students and Minority-Serving Institutions?," was not intended as "an attack on the Obama administration" but as a way to contribute to discussion over the ratings.
He urged lobbyists and Congressional aides in the audience to join that debate, warning of the perils of "enacting sound bites."
"This is a very high-stakes set of issues," he said, "that will determine the fate of institutions and students."
- See more at: http://m.chronicle.com/article/Education-Dept-Tells-Ratings/148587/#sthash.4m2U8eyB.dpufResponding to several studies presented at a Congressional briefing she attended, the official, Deputy Under Secretary Jamienne S. Studley, said the researchers had raised "very appropriate" questions about the risk that college ratings could inadvertently harm minority students and the institutions that serve them.
"The conversations we are having [at the department] are eerily similar to the one I’ve heard this morning," she said. She also outlined her "own test of success" for the ratings: Will they recognize institutions that do a better-than-expected job of graduating low-income, first-generation, and minority students?
The proposed ratings system, due this fall, will judge colleges based on measures of access, affordability, and student outcomes, and could eventually allocate federal aid based on those ratings.
Officials in the Obama administration, including the secretary of education, Arne Duncan, have repeatedly sought to reassure skeptics that the department is taking pains to craft a system that takes students’ demographics and academic preparation into account.
At the briefing, organized by the Civil Rights Project at the University of California at Los Angeles, Ms. Studley—who has helped lead efforts to craft the ratings—said officials were considering metrics that would weigh the different student bodies that institutions serve. Those factors could include students’ ZIP codes, the high schools they attended, and whether they have first-generation status.
She promised that the system would reward a "trajectory of improvement" and not simply punish poorly performing institutions. "Our objective is not to eliminate," she said. "It’s to improve." And she hinted that the administration might consider creating two separate ratings, with different metrics—one to create accountability and one to inform consumers.
But she urged the researchers to keep an open mind about federal ratings, asking them to "consider the positive side" of "reinforcing resources" at highly rated institutions.
Gary Orfield, co-director of the UCLA Civil Rights Project, said the briefing, titled "Do Higher Ed Accountability Proposals Narrow Opportunity for Minority Students and Minority-Serving Institutions?," was not intended as "an attack on the Obama administration" but as a way to contribute to discussion over the ratings.
He urged lobbyists and Congressional aides in the audience to join that debate, warning of the perils of "enacting sound bites."
"This is a very high-stakes set of issues," he said, "that will determine the fate of institutions and students."
Education Dept. Tells Ratings Skeptics Their Concerns Are Valid
September 02, 2014
Washington
A key Education Department official said on Tuesday that she shared education researchers’ concerns about the potential unintended consequences of a federal college-ratings system.
Responding to several studies presented at a Congressional briefing she attended, the official, Deputy Under Secretary Jamienne S. Studley, said the researchers had raised "very appropriate" questions about the risk that college ratings could inadvertently harm minority students and the institutions that serve them.
"The conversations we are having [at the department] are eerily similar to the one I’ve heard this morning," she said. She also outlined her "own test of success" for the ratings: Will they recognize institutions that do a better-than-expected job of graduating low-income, first-generation, and minority students?
The proposed ratings system, due this fall, will judge colleges based on measures of access, affordability, and student outcomes, and could eventually allocate federal aid based on those ratings.
Officials in the Obama administration, including the secretary of education, Arne Duncan, have repeatedly sought to reassure skeptics that the department is taking pains to craft a system that takes students’ demographics and academic preparation into account.
At the briefing, organized by the Civil Rights Project at the University of California at Los Angeles, Ms. Studley—who has helped lead efforts to craft the ratings—said officials were considering metrics that would weigh the different student bodies that institutions serve. Those factors could include students’ ZIP codes, the high schools they attended, and whether they have first-generation status.
She promised that the system would reward a "trajectory of improvement" and not simply punish poorly performing institutions. "Our objective is not to eliminate," she said. "It’s to improve." And she hinted that the administration might consider creating two separate ratings, with different metrics—one to create accountability and one to inform consumers.
But she urged the researchers to keep an open mind about federal ratings, asking them to "consider the positive side" of "reinforcing resources" at highly rated institutions.
Gary Orfield, co-director of the UCLA Civil Rights Project, said the briefing, titled "Do Higher Ed Accountability Proposals Narrow Opportunity for Minority Students and Minority-Serving Institutions?," was not intended as "an attack on the Obama administration" but as a way to contribute to discussion over the ratings.
He urged lobbyists and Congressional aides in the audience to join that debate, warning of the perils of "enacting sound bites."
"This is a very high-stakes set of issues," he said, "that will determine the fate of institutions and students."
- See more at: http://m.chronicle.com/article/Education-Dept-Tells-Ratings/148587/#sthash.4m2U8eyB.dpufResponding to several studies presented at a Congressional briefing she attended, the official, Deputy Under Secretary Jamienne S. Studley, said the researchers had raised "very appropriate" questions about the risk that college ratings could inadvertently harm minority students and the institutions that serve them.
"The conversations we are having [at the department] are eerily similar to the one I’ve heard this morning," she said. She also outlined her "own test of success" for the ratings: Will they recognize institutions that do a better-than-expected job of graduating low-income, first-generation, and minority students?
The proposed ratings system, due this fall, will judge colleges based on measures of access, affordability, and student outcomes, and could eventually allocate federal aid based on those ratings.
Officials in the Obama administration, including the secretary of education, Arne Duncan, have repeatedly sought to reassure skeptics that the department is taking pains to craft a system that takes students’ demographics and academic preparation into account.
At the briefing, organized by the Civil Rights Project at the University of California at Los Angeles, Ms. Studley—who has helped lead efforts to craft the ratings—said officials were considering metrics that would weigh the different student bodies that institutions serve. Those factors could include students’ ZIP codes, the high schools they attended, and whether they have first-generation status.
She promised that the system would reward a "trajectory of improvement" and not simply punish poorly performing institutions. "Our objective is not to eliminate," she said. "It’s to improve." And she hinted that the administration might consider creating two separate ratings, with different metrics—one to create accountability and one to inform consumers.
But she urged the researchers to keep an open mind about federal ratings, asking them to "consider the positive side" of "reinforcing resources" at highly rated institutions.
Gary Orfield, co-director of the UCLA Civil Rights Project, said the briefing, titled "Do Higher Ed Accountability Proposals Narrow Opportunity for Minority Students and Minority-Serving Institutions?," was not intended as "an attack on the Obama administration" but as a way to contribute to discussion over the ratings.
He urged lobbyists and Congressional aides in the audience to join that debate, warning of the perils of "enacting sound bites."
"This is a very high-stakes set of issues," he said, "that will determine the fate of institutions and students."
2 comments:
Yeah, sure they are going to "craft a system that takes students' demographics and academic preparation into account" - just like everyone does with K-12. Heck you don't just get compared to other counties or states, you get compared to Finland and Hong Kong.
Why in the world do we need the federal government rating post secondary institutions - talk about federal over reach!
You think Common Core has become a political lighting rod, just wait until universities like UCLA, Michigan, Harvard, Bama or Texas start getting dinged by this instrument, much less tried to have the feds use that to divert student loan $. I can only imagine the sort of uproar that politicians, university trained lawyers and alumi will create when their alma mater starts getting portrayed as lacking in some capacity.
Feds have gotten out of control by confusing over extended purse string with constitutional jurisdiction. Maybe we out to consider investing the money we spent on developing and implementing these types of things on student needs instead.
Post a Comment