Investing in the future through education - Gates Foundation

A commitment to the welfare of broad numbers of Americans is an idea imbedded in democracy and romanticized in the "American Dream." Yet, obsession with protecting a competitive capitalist meritocracy is embraced by many Americans, both rich and poor. This obsession across class was graphically reinforced in the electoral base that supported Donald Trump's election and bid for election in 2020.

While political conservatism celebrates capitalism and the competitive spirit that supposedly supports it, many conservatives are skeptical of higher education. The recent survey of the Association of American Colleges & Universities and Bipartisan Policy Center found that "Seven in 10 Democrats say that a college degree is 'definitely' or 'probably' worth it, compared with only 53 percent of Republicans and 52 percent of independents." The survey results also reflected a sharp division related to the importance of a commitment to social justice, with 45% of Democrats, 28% of Independents, and 19% of Republicans endorsing social justice as part important to long-term career success. This division is an important backdrop to consider in relation to the Gates Foundation's Post-Secondary Value Commission report. The Commission report was "designed to catalyze an equitable value movement, which will help reshape the higher education system in the United States by combating access and completion barriers, sparking economic mobility, dismantling racist practices and structural inequalities, and building a more vibrant and just society." The Commission report raises question of individual, institutional, as well as governmental responsibility for correcting inequities that exist.

The Gates Foundation report is hailed as lifting up the long-held assertion of educators that access, equity, and completion of educational goals has to be a central goal of a democratic society. Why? Because informed and talented citizens pay off in numerous ways - responsible participation, innovation, service, and economic vitality. The cost of inequity is too significant to ignore and the solution isn't only gaining access to higher education but the role it plays in equalizing opportunity. Illustrating this point in the bellweather setting of LA, a recent report of Los Angeles County's public education system reveals some hope in the diversification of enrollment to include Black and LatinX students but persistent problems with degree and certificate completion.

It has long been clear that privileged Americans are taking care of themselves by preserving access and networks through elite higher education. The Gates Foundation seeks to highlight how investment to benefit those without this privilege can be achieved - by "providing stronger academic and wraparound supports - including better academic and career counseling and mental health services; more comprehensive assistance with personal and financial needs, including tuition, childcare, food and housing; and stronger transfer pathways - to ensure that these students can reach their educational goals." Gates Commission members Anthony Carnevale and Kathryn Peltier offer the sobering conclusion that "The chances of earning a college degree and finding a good job in young adulthood are often determined more by a student's family socioeconomic status than by early achievement - for American children, it's better to be rich than smart." This is evident in the unfulfilled promise of commensurate opportunity that many students face, especially those of lower socio-economic means.

At the center of equality of opportunity is the question of what it costs to get a college degree and, especially an assessment of the return on investment. Funding from significant financiers is driving inequality to greater levels as they fund private and elite institutions. The coffers of the Ivy League are so profoundly out of proportion to other institutions that the graduates of these institutions, regardless of their own families' economic status, graduate with less debt than students at all other types of institutions.

A companion to the Gate's Foundation Value Commission report is a tool to assess what students can expect to make after graduation in the Equitable Value Explorer. Unfortunately, numerous institutions offer degrees that incur debt far beyond students' ability to pay off loans they took out to attend. However, the director of the Center for Education and the Workplace said that "College typically pays off, but the return on investment varies by credential." The Center's analysis determined that lack of degree completion ends up with a net loss in economic return, the result of paying for education that ultimately did not lead to degree-based advancement.

When considering policy related to inequity in education, it's important to focus on the breadth of educational opportunity, not just the programs that prepare students for work. The balance between career preparation and life readiness is difficult to strike and perhaps is most evident in the focus of community colleges on workforce development. Karen Stout, president and CEO of an organization of over 300 community colleges, declared that the equity statement for Achieving the Dream calls members to pursue "institution-wide and transformational change that eliminates systemic barriers, addresses student needs, and increases social justice and equity," 

Steve Mintz' review of Montas's book, Rescuing Socrates: How the Great Books Changed My Life and Why They Matter for a New Generation, asserts, "I find it bitterly ironic that many of the staunchest advocates for a faster, cheaper education had, themselves, the benefits of a liberal education. Now, in the name of access, affordability, and credential attainment, too many call for a cheaper, faster, career-focused education, dismissing a liberal education for the masses as a fool's errand."

Adam Harris' book, The State Must Provide: Why America's Colleges Have Always Been Unequal - And How to Set Them Right, asserts that "From its inception, our higher education system was not built on equality or accessibility, but on educating -- and prioritizing -- white students." Drawing conclusions from Harris and other authors, Steve Mintz proposed seven issues that could help explain the failures of higher education in correcting racial disparities and wealth inequality.  The fact that elite institutions have consistently served as "inequality machines" is one of the most difficult barriers to overcome.

”It's abundantly clear that the United States has not created the equitable democracy that offers opportunity to all regardless of background. Abandoning the unsubstantiated assumption of competitive capitalism, without educational opportunity and talent development, appears to be a way forward for all Americans, regardless of socioeconomic status. Advocating for change could, or should, be part of the economic recovery planning that the Biden administration has launched and both the individual and community impact of economic development should be recognized. John Macintosh asserted that the U.S. higher education system, with 125 years of decentralization, allows only incremental change, when "steps to better serve students by exploring things like shared services and infrastructure, joint academic offerings, even mergers or preplanned, well-funded teach-outs" are actually required.

Harper, Culver, & Keazar propose that the process of change and creating more equitable and justice-focused processes of design must be cultivated if higher education institutions are to make progress, but redesign is difficult when key systems are in place that thwart it. The idea is to apply design thinking to problems that colleges and universities face, striving to identify power differentials and inequities that impair the process of decision making that are used while the policies and systems are being critically examined.

The National Association of System Heads (NASH), begun in 1979 with 42 public systems in 29 states and designs to expand, has begun to look at how systems can improve their effectiveness. The "initiative will aim to improve credential completion and social mobility and to reduce student debt by tackling issues and efficiencies in five key areas of higher education: learning, talent, equity, investment and 'systmness,' or the practice of fostering cohesion over competition among different systems."

Levine and Van Pelt say that the transformation of higher education is already occurring at the margins and that this is where innovation is most likely to continue. In their view, the future will be more focused on outcomes, individualized, and low-cost, conditions that also drive expansion of online approaches that allow for learning any time and place. Higher Ed Dive reinforced the importance of these issues by identifying 7 trends that are likely to impact institutions on an ongoing basis. Other industries such as music, movies, and newspapers have innovated a future that prospective students now expect from education. Matt Read questioned the analogy to profit-driven industries (e.g. entertainment) versus the public responsibility of state-supported institutions by saying, "Although Levine and Van Pelt acknowledge the difference in passing, the fact that public higher education is nonprofit... suggests that it serves a mission other than its own growth... It serves a civic mission, based both on equity and on a notion of democratic citizenship."