Failure of Proposition 103

Once again, Colorado voters decided that higher education in the state is not a priority, and is unworthy of public funding. Earlier this week, Coloradans rejected Proposition 103, which would have created “a five-year timeout from education cuts by raising around $3 billion over five years for preschool, K-12 education and higher education.” By rejecting a small rise in sales tax (2.9% to 3.0%), and a small increase in income tax (4.63% to 5%), we have said to no to educating our children for a brighter tomorrow. We have said no to keeping Colorado competitive in the country. Colorado’s funding for higher education was already ranked a dismal 49th place out of 50 states. This no vote has ensured our place among the worst in valuing higher education.

Clearly, fear has motivated people to look short term, instead of long-term, at the future of our great state. “A Colorado family making the median income of $55,700 will pay about $132 a year. That is only 40 cents a day to stop education cuts.” Forty cents a day! That is an eighth of a cup of your daily coffee at Starbucks! With all of the SUV’s on the road, and the cost of gas, that might get us a mile down the road, if we’re lucky. Due to the poor economy, higher education has endured budget cuts over the past three years, and are running extremely tight ships. With the rejection of Prop 103, we are faced with a fourth year of cuts. Many schools have trimmed budgets and staffs to the bare-bones minimum. Staff members are being asked to take on more responsibilities and create new initiatives, even while attendance is exploding. At some point in the near future, I believe that we are going to reach a breaking point. In general, Americans are already overworked, and take off less time than co-workers across the globe. With resources and time being stretched ever-thinner, we are going to reach a point where performing our jobs will become impossible. We are simply going to burn out, and Colorado has chosen to let us burn and then spit us out.

The students at our colleges and universities are also suffering. Here in Colorado, tuition costs have risen over 43% in the past five years. As funding for colleges gets cut, administrations often have no choice other than to raise tuition. This also comes on the heels of reduced federal funding for higher education, producing a larger burden on students. Student loan debt recently passed the $1 trillion mark, outpacing credit card debt for the first time. From the Vote Yes on 103 website: “This is not the kind of higher education system Colorado needs. We need colleges that are accessible to all Coloradans. Colleges and universities provide essential job training and work skills for future employees and employers. Continuing to undermine our higher education system will only undermine our economy.”

Soon, hopefully, this country will realize that in order to fix the economy, we all must make sacrifices. Our parents and grandparents realized this when recovering from the Great Depression. Solving the woes of the economy will not come on the backs of cutting funding, as the Tea Party likes to tout. Government services can only be cut and stretched so far. Higher taxes are needed to get us out of this recession. We each need to sacrifice to help turn our country around.

Rival Colorado Schools, How Do You Recruit?

Some of the current buzz words in higher education are: technology, recruitment, and budget. With decreasing budgets and a growing need to recruit bigger freshman classes, commonly used recruitment strategies are being reconsidered. Technology is becoming more and more important and resourceful and may be used in recruitment to decrease costs. 

An article in the Chronicle titled “Strategy Matters More Than Budget in Student Recruitment” discussed some steps universities should consider when recruiting students. Basically, the article suggested enrollment offices connect their institutional mission with the results of a market analysis to create a student profile to direct recruitment strategies. By knowing exactly who the university wants to market to, schools get more bang for their buck.

In addition, the article suggests that each school knows their strengths and weaknesses in comparison to their competition in order to stand out among the rest. In addition to this it is important to have a dynamic, responsive, persuasive enrollment team to create a good first impression to prospective students. 

Okay, this is all obvious and boring! If you have read this far and not jumped to another, more exciting blog then I commend you on your dedication to enrollment management. I was initially attracted to the above article because at my university we are attempting to revamp the way we recruit students. I will not tip my hand completely because I know many of you represent rival universities and also because my boss is in this class. Hi Michele!

One thing I will discuss, however, is the use of telecounseling in recruitment procedures. Our Admissions team utilizes this strategy and we have mixed thoughts about its effectiveness. Basically, we hire undergraduate students to call prospective students during evening hours to convey various messages from our Admissions team. This year there has been a slight reduction in the amount of hours we spend using this format. The argument for telecounseling is that it gives our university a chance to create a ‘live’ connection with prospective students and creates a personal touch. The argument against this strategy is that students do not actually answer their phones either because they are screening their calls or because they are engaging in extracurricular or social activities. Therefore, the undergraduate students end up leaving mostly messages which negates the argument for telecounseling anyway. We know we still need to reach out to prospective students yet the most effective format may no longer be by phone. 

Without tipping your hand, of course, what are some ideas of how to recruit students that is more with the times? Internet: blogging, chatting? Snail mail or email? I am all about using creativity in my life so please feel free to get crazily creative! I am not sure if that is actually a word.

Reflections on NASPA IV-W, Views that Inspire

My first regional NASPA conference, the IV-W "Views that Inspire", left me with messages that I hope I can retain and insert into my professional energy.  I spent the past three days with great colleagues learning from each other and commiserating on everything from students who make poor life choices to budgetary issues to restructuring concerns.  I attended sessions on student conduct as a retention tool, behavioral intervention teams, successful publishing, and empowering the bystander.  Keynote speeches by Larry Roper, Gwendolyn Dungy, and Cleo Parker Robinson inspired us to make a difference.  Sometimes at the end of conferences, I feel energized to go back to my campus and create change.  Other times I feel incredibly overwhelmed by how much we are NOT doing, or how much work there still remains to be done.  This conference left me with a feeling of both.

I live tweeted most of the conference (as did many), especially some of the nuggets of wisdom from they keynote speakers.  Larry Roper, an incredibly engaging and humane speaker, challenged us as professionals to be conscious and intentional about they way we enter students' lives and that the little things that we do not necessarily think about leave footprints on their lives.  Do we stomp in or do we step lightly?  How do those approaches make a difference in their students lives?  What is the depth of our humanity, and how do we make room in our lives for those who ask for our help?  If we do make room for those students who openly seek us, do we choose to judge them or do we choose to feel for those students--and if we choose judgment, what does that mean?

Larry often says that our job is to believe in other people's children.  This cannot be more true, especially when we work with students whose families do not believe in them or even understand what it means to be in school.     He also challenges us to look at love as a measure of sustainability--but in what sense?  Sustainability in persistence, or more importantly in hope gets a student through the day.  How can we as administrators empower that even further?

Gwendolyn Dungy asked us to reorient our practice to higher education's national agenda of persistence and completion.  I believe that her message and Larry's message tie together nicely.  The challenge behind all of this?  We hear the message in the context of our conference, but can we take it back to our home campuses and implement the ideas we know we should.  To create connection, Cleo Parker Robinson forced us to connect our spirits with our bodies (for better or worse--either way it made its way into a YouTube video).  She demonstrated the powerful connection of language and movement, even some of us did not want to engage in this way, we all did.  For me, this was a great demonstration of our need to be intentional about accommodating learning styles.

So many nuggets of wisdom, so little time in our day-to-day to implement them.  We've come so far as a profession, yet we still have so far to go.  Time to get moving!

Go UNC!

Today UNC held their annual fall blood drive, and this year everyone will be included. Since 1985, the FDA has enforced a policy, which excludes most gay men from donating blood. Any man who has had sexual relations with another man (MSM) since 1977 is permanently deferred from giving blood. This policy was implemented during the time of an "AIDS Crisis" to prevent recipients form receiving HIV contaminated blood. The FDA has been able to uphold this policy based on the fact that gay and bisexual men are at the highest risk for HIV as a group. Other groups who are at a higher risk for HIV are not upheld to the same standards. For example if a non- MSM individual has sexual relations with a commercial sex worker they are only deferred from donating for a 12 month period. African American women who have a higher rate of HIV as a group are not subject to any kind of deferral.

With many blood drives held at places of employment and schools, this FDA policy has been highly criticized. With the need for blood donation, prospective donors who are not HIV positive are excluded from fighting the cause. There has been significant advancements in testing for HIV since the implementation of this ban in 1985. HIV can be tested for weeks or even days after exposure to the virus. With this in mind only those who have participated in risky behavior during a designated window period should be deferred from donating blood. The FDA has looked into changing their policy in 2000 and 2006. At this point no changes have been made.

Although this ban has not been lifted, several senators are on board. In 2010 Senator Kerry explained that “not a single piece of scientific evidence supports the ban.” The Obama administration still offers hope in initiating change. Obama’s goal is to “have policies in place that are based in science” rather than “any discriminatory ideas about our community.”

In response to this policy several college campuses including San Jose State and Queens College of New York have ban blood drives on campus all together. Here at UNC we are taking the chance to make our blood drive an educational opportunity. Today students and community members are being asked to “give blood for someone who can’t”. For those who are not permitted to give blood for whatever reason, postcards are available. These postcards have a message in support of changing the current discriminatory laws around blood donation. In my opinion this was a great idea in making a much needed event more inclusive. All students were able to participate in one way or another regardless of their sexual activity and preference.

Prop 103 Makes National News

I'm sure you all are, like me, hearing about more budget cuts to higher education this year and just trying to figure out how it is all going to shake down. Because of cuts, and in taking the Finance class this semester, I have been paying closer attention to more state actions towards educational funding in general. So I was paying attention to Prop 103. Reading about it, talking with others about it. And when I saw it made national news in The Chronicle today, I thought what I found would be interesting to share through this blog.

If you have not read recent voting results, Prop 103 failed BIG TIME. Only 35% of people supported the bill. As someone who understands and is feeling the fiscal impacts from the state at first I wanted 103 to do well. But after doing some asking and learning, while it will be more challenging that 103 failed, it is better for the long run for Higher Education.

Prop 103 would have increased sales tax in Colorado with funding towards education. I am in a presidential leadership program on my campus where once a month a select group of people get together to learn more about our institution to advance our leadership. This past Friday our topic was Metro State in the Bigger Picture, which means we looked at how Metro State is partnered with the Denver Metro community. One of the places we visited was the Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce. There, we met with the Chamber Executive Director who talked with us about the functions of the Chamber and their three main areas of focus: transportation, healthcare and education. (if you don't know about the closest chamber to you, check it out they really encourage involvement from education and what a great way to create connections to our colleges!)

While there, we started talking about 103 and the chamber, who has interest in supporting education for economic development in Colorado, was not in support of 103. They felt 103 was a band aid for funding that would not truly create a strong source of funding for education, espcially higher education in the state. The feeling was if 103 passed, there would be people who would think there would be no other reason to increase  funding for education.

I walked away thinking. I thought I should vote yes on 103 so we can increase our budget, keep up with operating costs, not have to raise tuition, get out of hiring freezes (and in a utopic way maybe get a raise!- my dream world). I wondered what others thought... so I asked our President who I happen to spend the rest of the day with on Friday. He is so close to all of these decisions and I really respect his decision making process for our college and within the community of Denver. He agreed that 103 was not the best solution for higher education.

So in the last few days I have just been reflecting on the politics of funding and how even a bill with wording that voters might get behind, in the long run may not be the best option. I wondered why I did not see campaigning about 103- now I understand. Our president told me that 103 would not have helped our students in the best ways possible. He wanted to make sure that funding in the state is as permanent as possible and not always tied to public dollars because just as easy as taxes are raised, they can be cut as well.

Now I don't know where the funding for higher education is going to come from if it does not come from public dollars and some sort of public contribution. I cannot even begin to offer solutions to this budget crisis but this new information has made me think in different ways about how education is connected to the community and government.This small experience has jump started a new thinking process for me as a practitioner and I am excited to see where it takes me.

Complete College America – Colorado’s Newest Initiative?

Do you ever have one of those weeks at work where a new concept/initiative is introduced on Monday and by Friday, that seems to be all you hear about? That is how my week was last week. I attended a national conference here in Denver hosted by the National Council on Student Development (NCSD). During the opening session, Dr. Rod Risley, Executive Director of Phi Theta Kappa Honor Society, spoke about Complete College America (CCA). While I had vaguely heard of CCA, it was not something that had been discussed at great length, but I jotted down some notes about looking into CCA a little further once was I got back to the office. When I returned to campus, I had an email from Tamara Johnson, Director of Admissions and Access Policy at the Colorado Department of Higher Education (CDHE), and attached was a report outlining the Colorado statewide metrics completed by CCA. The email stated, “as you may know, we are a member of the Complete College America Alliance of States.” Oddly, enough, I did not already know. Tamara mentioned that we could request an institution specific report from CCA, which I did. As I looked over the first report, which contained staggering numbers on Colorado remediation, I received another email requesting I participate in a college-wide initiative to look at overhauling remediation at our college. I accepted the invitation, worked a while on another project, and then received the institution specific CCA report. The numbers were alarming, to say the best.

Complete College America, established in 2009, is a non-profit organization dedicated to helping states and is “…working to significantly increase the number of Americans with a college degree or credential of value and to close attainment gaps for traditionally underrepresented populations (www.completecollege.org).” CCA is funded by Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and several other organization dedicated to funding education. States that participate in CCA are also competing for a 10$ million grant.

Per the website, 70% of jobs in Colorado will require that a person has a degree or certificate by 2020, but only 41% of Colorado adults currently have an associate’s degree or higher, which leaves a 29% gap between demand and supply. The data shows that at:

• 2-year colleges

o Full Time - of the 21 students who enroll full time, only 10 return as sophomores, 2 will graduate on time, and only 5 will graduate in total.
o Part Time - of 20 part-time students, 6 will return as sophomores, 0 will graduate on time, and only 1 will actually graduate.

• At 4-year institutions

o Full Time - of 56 full time students, 41 will return as sophomores, 16 will graduate on time, and only 30 will graduate.
o Part Time - of 3 part-time students, 1 will return as sophomores, 0 will graduate on time, and only 1 will actually graduate.

While Colorado seems to be providing greater access to all students, the success rates of students needs significant work. Furthermore, students who start out in remediation are far less likely to succeed. At 2-year colleges, 35.3% of the students require remediation, of which only 9.2% will graduate within 3 years. At 4-year colleges, 9.3% of the students require remediation, of which 21.7% will graduate within 6 years.

At 2-year institutions, the argument has long been that part-time students, which makes up a large part of the student population, is not being counted towards community college success rates. The research done at CCA is not only focusing on the full-time student, but also on the part time student. The report released by CCA demonstrates that this can no longer be an argument at 2-year colleges. The retention and success rates of part-time students are staggering. While I would argue that these numbers do not show the original intent of part-time students (some part-time students come to community colleges just to take one course), I would argue that something needs to change.

At my current institution, change means we begin with remediation/developmental courses. An overwhelming number of our students start out in remediation and the success rates are low. There are so many challenges with how to “fix” this issue, but something must be done soon. States and federal government are looking for ways to include success measurements in the equation for funding allocations. Community colleges need to get on board quickly if they want to continue being funded.

The other issue, of course, are the students. Students are taking out larger amounts of debt and without earning a degree, paying that debt back will be even more challenging. On top of this, I suspect that the Pell grant will soon be reduced, which means students facing remediation must be able to get it done quickly.