College Ratings Framework

Folks who are invested in the education debates can be excused for getting two issues slightly confused in the last month. Arne Duncan's Department of Education has been floating two college related proposals. One is the foolish and unsupportable proposal to rate colleges of education on the test scores of their former students' students. The other is to rate all colleges and universities according to...well, that's what's being discussed.

This factsheet about the college ratings framework will give you a good idea of what's going on. It opens with some stirring words from the Dunc-meister himself.

As  a  nation,  we  have  to  make  college  more  accessible  and  affordable  and  ensure  that  all students graduate  with  any  education  of  real  value.  Our  students  deserve  to  know,  before  they enroll,  that  the  schools  they’ve  chosen  will  deliver  this  value.    With  the  guidance  of thousands  of  wise  voices,  we  can  develop  a  useful  ratings  system  that  will  help  more Americans  realize  the  dream  of  a  degree  that  unleashes  their  potential  and  opens  doors  to  a better  life.

Every time this administration talks about making college more affordable, I'm forced to remember the reports that the Department of Education is making huge profits from college loans. If the feds could show even half the interest rate love to students that they show to banksters, the "more affordable" part of Dunckie's dream would get somewhat closer. But this is a pretty standard pattern for this business-friendly administration-- we want to get SATs and AP tests and college and health care to every Ameican, as long as we don't have to ask corporations to give up any of their profit margin to do it.

Since the administration's premise is that education is the only thing that will help fix financial and social inequity (again, anything that would bite into corporate profits is off the table), they've got to somehow camouflage the evidence that our current post-secondary system reinforces the Walls Between the Classes rather than breaking them down.

The factsheet lists some of the administration's "achievements," including increasing Pell grants and Opportunity Tax Credits. They're also proud of capping student loan payments at 10% of monthly income, guaranteeing that students will be able to keep paying those loans off until they are eligible for Social Security (whether they'll get any or not is another discussion).

But the administration also wants to put pressure on colleges, because if there's notenough social mobility in America, the only possible explanation is that some colleges suck. So we'd like to rate colleges on many qualities, including but not limited to, enrolling students from many backgrounds, focusing on affordability, and good graduation rate. Here's what the feds think they know so far about rating access, affordability, and outcomes.

Rating categories. Lots of folks have told the Dunc-inator that rankings and false precision would be a bad idea, so the department is leaning toward three ratings: high-performing, low-performing, and those in the middle. This is a bit of a weasel because the choice on what to call those in the middle will be telling. "Adequate," "well-performing," and "meh" would all fit the descriptor, but provide much different impressions to consumers.

Institutional grouping. A system that allows consumers to compare Harvard Law School and Bob's Truck Driving Academy isn't particularly useful to anybody. The department agrees that taking the goals and type of institutions into account would help ratings make more sense.

Data. They'll start out using data from federal systems, IPEDS and NSLDS. They will keep it just as safe and secure as... well, let's not think about that.

Metrics being considered? What percentage of students are Pelling? Expected family contribution. Family income quintiles. First-generation college students. These would be a measure of how diverse the school population is. Average net price and net price by quintile would look at affordability.  Completion rates and transfer rates would speak to successful completion, and labor market success would be another outcome measure. The department is thinking about measuring labor market success not just in job placement, but in income above a certain threshold.  Grad school attendance would fit in the outcomes. And for fun, let's throw in  how graduates do at repaying their loans.

Yes, let me back up, in case you missed it-- maybe we should evaluate colleges on how much money their graduates make.

It's an interesting assortment, since many of these are beyond the control of the college in question. But some of these would be good things to know, even as many of them will just demonstrate that rich people who go to rich people colleges grow up to be rich people. Boy, that was useful. Unfortunately, the department thinks there is one more step to take here.

Next Steps, College Ratings Website, and Transparency Tools

It's not clear why, having collected this data, we would need a rating system. The government currently requires food companies to list nutritional information on their packaging, but it does not assign a rating based on that data. Nutritional labeling remains one of my all-time favorite examples of government in action-- I get the information I need to make the choices that best suit me. I don't need the feds to label the food "Good" or Healthy" or "Fatty Fat Fat." I can interpret the data in the way that best suits my needs, beliefs, and inclinations.

If the feds want to give students and families more information about colleges, that would be fine. I don't need the feds to interpret the data for me, based on what they think I should want and need. But as Under Secretary Ted Mitchell notes in his closing comments, the feds also like the idea of awarding money (or not) based on their own rating system. So once again we have the administration acting like cartoon versions of what non-liberals hate about liberals-- the idea that people just shouldn't be left to make up their own minds about things because federal bureaucrats can make much wiser choices for them than they can make for themselves.

Add that on top of the bitter irony that this is the federal government that announced its intention to bring the hammer down on predatory for-profit colleges, and yet, when the biggest offender in the pack turned up, these same feds mostly protected the financial interests of the owners. In short, these guys who want to get super-involved in determining the best interests of students already have a lousy record in looking out for the best interests of students. In really short, if you're going to insist on federal overreach, at least show some aptitude for it.

The  Department  invites  comment  from  the  public  on  the  draft  framework  by  Tuesday,  Feb.17, 2015. Submissions  can  be  submitted  through  the online  form at  http://www.ed.gov/blog/collegeratings or by  email  to  collegefeedback@ed.gov

.

Duncan Chases Teachers Away

Arne Duncan's new policy initiative is a perfect example of the law of unintended consequences in action.

Duncan proposes that teacher prep programs be evaluated by looking at the test results of the students of the graduates of the college. If that seems like a twisted sentence, that's because it's a twisted program. We can make two early and easy predictions about what effects it will have.

The first is simple. It will mean the college education departments will cut spending on programs so that they can afford whatever administrative assistant has to be hired to spend all their time chasing the numbers necessary to make the report to the feds. Some bunch of adjunct professors are going to have their hours cut so that somebody else can spend his days wending through the labyrinthian process of tracking down alumni, then tracking down their scores.

The second is, well, also simple. We already know that the best predictor of good student test scores is family income. Every college education department that doesn't want to get spanked by the US Department of Education has to do one simple thing-- they must do everything in their power to keep their graduates from getting jobs in poor urban schools.

Urban school districts that have tried to foster good relationships with college ed programs will find that they can't get their calls returned. College ed departments will screen school districts carefully and be cautious about which job openings they pass along to their grads.

If one of Duncan's goals is to put great teachers in poor urban classrooms, he could not have better designed a policy to do the exact opposite. This new policy is just one more step in the process of labeling some schools and some districts as career-killers, schools to be avoided at all costs if you wish to devote your life to teaching. This new policy will just add one more voice to the conversation saying, "Whatever you do, don't get a job at Poor Kid High School."

This is good news for TFA (or at least, it would be if they weren't suffering recruiting woes of their own) because Duncan's policy will help create more artificial teacher shortages in poor urban schools. But it is nothing but bad news for the schools themselves, branded with big scarlet F's and surrounded by signs screaming, "Whatever you do, don't come here to teach!" It is one of Duncan's poorest policy choices yet.