While we all make mistakes, the attached letter recruiting subjects for research is a small piece of evidence that appears to confirm our collective worst fears: for-profits are most interested in money, less interested in quality education (I have blocked out the student’s identifying information and the link to the student’s survey). Granted, many faculty, including myself, have participated on dissertation committees of students who produce less than stellar research, write poorly, etc. — and these students attend not-for-profits or publics. No doubt there is a problem with both the preparation of students and the quality of some programs.  I constantly strive to improve the quality of education for my students, but it is admittedly an ongoing challenge. But are for-profits and the model of education they trumpet helping to address these problems?

I think it is fair to single out the for-profits for several reasons. The first is the belief evident in current education policy talk that says markets and the profit motive (ignoring all the fraud, of course), will lead to greater educational access, quality and equality. I have suspected for a long time that for-profit education will at best not achieve these goals. At worst, I fear they will serve to make things much worse.

Research conducted with my colleagues has documented that for-profits receive the highest median Pell per full-time equivalent (FTE) compared to publics and non-profits for the years 1993, 2000 and 2004. This trend might be framed as another form of corporate subsidy. At the same time, for-profits continue to enroll an increasing number of minority students (my most recent research found a huge percent increase in the number of American Indian/Alaskan Natives attending for-profits, for example).

Most interesting is our finding that a smaller percentage of expenses is directed toward instruction at for-profits than non-profits. Sure, maybe for-profits are more efficient, but that line of argument doesn’t solve the problem of why this great efficiency appears to be applied aggressively toward groups that have been and continue to be subjected to discrimination and racist exclusion? Is it OK to “waste” money on rich White kids? (I don’t believe that small class sizes, and small teaching loads for faculty, with a broad range of social and cultural activities for college students, faculty and staff, and plenty of support for faculty developed curriculum and research, is “wasteful”; it just doesn’t line up with the present goals and values of the super rich who now think they reign supreme).

So, we should ask, efficient at what, for whom? Even if a particular student benefits from this type of educational opportunity that does not obliterate the real concern: does the rise of for-profits and marketization more generally herald a new kind of educational stratification, a new means for structuring inequality under the guise of accountability, access and “meeting student demands”? Since for-profits have a greater percentage of Pell eligible students, are we seeing a class bifurcation, especially as publics become less “public” (i.e., affordable)? Add to these concerns the role of for-profits in popularizing the view that education is equivalent to job training — that education has no other, broader social purpose.

Now let’s get back to the Chronicle. The only national newspaper dedicated to covering higher education has moved to sponsor — not simply advertise on their website and print edition, but endorse — email campaigns for a controversial sector of higher education. I for one expect them to cover for-profits in an unbiased fashion. Does the Chronicle of Higher Education actually endorse the for-profit model of higher education, despite the growing concerns that even for-profit PR firms have been unable to eradicate?

Well, upon receiving the first such email endorsement of for-profits, I sent a letter explaining my opposition to this practice to the Chronicle of Higher Education, and received no reply. Maybe the “efficiency” and “opportunity” and “accountability” evident in this recruitment letter will get someone’s attention!

Related Posts:

• Thousand Demonstrate Against California Education Cuts
• Bruce Baker: Smart Guy (Gates) makes my list of “Dumbest Stuff I’ve Ever Read!”
• Teachers have a right to unionize
• Inside Higher Ed: For-Profit Colleges Open Another Front
• Broad Foundation: Facts on the Wrecking of Public Education

Recent news confirms what we have known for a long time: change is coming, and it doesn’t look good. But a key part of contending with change — good or bad — is to step back and analyze how that change is legitimated. In the case of the attack on the right to organize, much can be learned if one examines how the matter is framed and justified.

The nature of the right to organize

Key to attacking teachers is disinformation regarding teachers and their rights. By definition, a right cannot be given or taken away. It is a valid, legitimate claim based in the existence of the holder of the claim. Rights, by their very nature, are not “granted” on the basis of performance, ability, opinion, or any other consideration. I have the right to participate in decision making about matters that affect me, like my working conditions, the condition of my community, the economy in general, etc…whether or not I’m good at math, nice to my neighbors or have friends in high places. I have that right by virtue of being a member of that community, that economy, that workplace. Whether that right is recognized is in practice quite different from whether or not it exists.

So, even if the existence of unions are shown to correlate with some malady, this correlation does not correctly justify attacking a basic right, like that of a group of people with common interests to come together to defend those interests. Does the existence of teachers unions make it harder for administrators to do their job? Sometimes. Does that justify attacking teachers’ right to organize? Absolutely not. This logic would suggest that we should throw harder to educate kids out of school because they make the school’s job harder. Rights establish the boundaries for the negotiation of contending interests, a process which should be governed by the aim of harmonizing those interests, not empowering one group of people at the expense of another as current rhetoric suggests.

So think of it this way, as the right to organize in terms of unions is not simply a matter of “labor rights” but basic to democratic rights in general. Involving all constituencies in making a decision takes longer, is probably a drain on social resources, and might even be properly rendered as “inefficient”. Should we thus abandon the hope that society can be democratically organized? Does this fact negate the claim to have a say over matters that affect our lives? If the process for firing ineffective teachers is burdensome is expanding arbitrary authority of CEO-types with their brooms and bats really a solution? I don’t believe the vast majority of Americans want to wake up in a world run by these broom and bat wielding people.

I hope that these quickly-formulated thought exercises reveal that the logic behind proposals to outlaw or at least largely emasculate collective bargaining are very dangerous. One proposal in fact appears to block teachers from having a say over education policy — so, teachers are key to improving the quality of education, but they should be barred from decision-making (collective bargaining is a decision-making arrangement) about the very thing they are to lead improving? Not convinced?

Certainly, lurking in the public mind is this retort: “yeah, but the teachers are all self interested.” And the billionaires driving school deformation strategies premised on a for-profit model which requires cheap, temporary labor are what, generous and selfless? But let’s actually be serious. What does it mean to be self interested?

Teachers working conditions are students learning conditions

The line that outlawing teachers unions is required so that school boards and parents can be empowered is lunacy. Parents are not empowered if the teachers that teach their children are treated like shit. School boards are not representing the interests of their community if they treat teachers like shit.

More to the point, the line that the problem is that teachers unions only serve the interests of teachers needs to be interrogated. Is self interest wrong? Why is it wrong or socially harmful to want higher wages, better healthcare, and small class sizes, rest and leisure and assurance of being cared for during retirement?

That sounds terrible! I’ll sign up instead for the work camp where I can salute the master every day, as my body cripples and spirit is crushed under the mighty pressure of standards gaps and evaluation evaluation assessments data driven decision-less making brain-numbing ignorance of the 6,000 pound gorilla who just got laid off, has no healthcare and is being evicted, with three children, all of whom are not meeting “benchmark” (although they might be sleeping under the bench, which is not one of the marks). (And, of course, because the gorilla is sooo big, it can’t choose to even live under the bridge, let alone the bench.)

It is a material fact that teachers working conditions are students learning conditions. That is, teachers self interest is connected to their students’ interests. Students under the tutelage of teachers who are themselves under the thumb of a broom or bat totting CEO with unbridled power to hire and fire at will and extend the working day and increase class size at will (all so they can be “empowered to strategically use resources” — i.e., cut costs) will not be served well. Period. Teachers and parents and tax payers have well over one hundred years of experience fighting for real public education. I know its tough, but we need to remember: teachers are tax payers. Teachers are parents. And teachers are mostly women.

So laid out this way, someone is going to have a hell of a time convincing the public that the self-interest of women is somehow fundamentally at odds with parents and the community, and that to counter this, we should put “students first”…because, uh, women are opposed to helping children, and benefit from, uh, illiterate, poorly educated youth?

You know what, I think its time the public eye scrutinized another collective — not teachers, or women, or parents — a much smaller collective, a collective for whom its self interest does not in fact correlate with the general interest!

Bill, Eli, are you there?

Related Posts:

• Thousand Demonstrate Against California Education Cuts
• Evidence on the quality of for-profit higher education?
• Stephen Sawchuk: States Aim to Curb Collective Bargaining
• Anthony Cody: Teachers Beware — They are Coming for Our Pensions
• Inside Higher Ed: For-Profit Colleges Open Another Front

According the article, “The three rules challenged by the career college group have also generated their share of concern among some nonprofit college officials, since they apply broadly to all institutions whose students receive federal financial aid.”

The lawsuit asks the courts to block the federal agency from enforcing three regulations that it claims “go far beyond lawful regulatory efforts.”

Federal plans to require vocationally oriented colleges to prove that they prepare students for “gainful employment” will likely be opposed in future lawsuits when those rules are released.

Related Posts:

• Privatization of Public Higher Education Will Not Solve Any Problem!
• Evidence on the quality of for-profit higher education?
• Teachers have a right to unionize
• Alan Singer: Charter Schools Don’t Do Miracles
• Broad Foundation: Facts on the Wrecking of Public Education

The Broad Effect” is behind the recent events in Rhode Island (the Central Falls firings ), and in Detroit, where the Detroit Public School Board has just unanimously voted to file a second lawsuit against Emergency Financial Manager Robert Bobb, saying the extra $145,000 in private foundation support he receives is an unlawful conflict of interest.

Related Posts:

• The Common Core: Whose Standards Are They?
• Evidence on the quality of for-profit higher education?
• Teachers have a right to unionize
• Inside Higher Ed: For-Profit Colleges Open Another Front
• Hess on Federal Jargon & the Jargon of Venture Capitalism and Wall Street Dictate

New York’s 908-page application included some choice phrases. It promises, “An intense focus on curriculum and meaningful professional development based on student performance; data-drive instruction where teams develop individual student action plans based on data from formative and interim assessments; differentiated professional development and coaching based on data” (page 6).

It also declares that it will create “clear, content-rich, sequenced, spiraled, detailed curricular frameworks” (yes, five adjectives) for new assessments (page 10).

And, impressive for the sheer amount of jargon that could be wedged into a single sentence, New York’s app promises “to support differentiated professional development closely linked to student growth data, identify coaches and mentors using effectiveness ratings closely tied to student growth data, and build data-driven feedback loops between professional development, coaching/mentoring activities, and teacher effectiveness” (page 144).

But the problem here is not “jargon” (defined as special words or expressions that are used by a particular profession or group and are difficult for others to understand) as it is reasonable for a field to develop a language specific to its scope of practice. Rather, the problem is that the phrases selected for mockery reflect the tendency to be irrational. “Differential professional development” is, if the notion of professional development is to be taken seriously, is at best redundant. PD would necessary include the idea that the prescribed development would be targeted to address a particular scope of practice; that is, the word differential is added to make us feel as if something more sophisticated is offered. Or, because we’re sick of hearing about professional development, we’re now going to advance by adding adjectives, such as differential, or, to take another example, content-rich, as if we would advocate for content-poor curriculum.

But wouldn’t it be more helpful to think about the conditions that give rise to this outcome of irrational verbiage? Isn’t the RTTT fixation on competition (like that of AEI) part of the context that gives rise to the degrading of thought by rendering it one long commercial aimed at convincing someone to pony up the dough?

Is Hess’s alternative any better? Not only do we find a “jargon” emanating from the AEI, but this jargon does not represent an improvement, but a call for a complete destruction of public education in principle as well as in practice. Here the most important notion is that of “greenfield”, borrowed from the real-estate developers, who are, by the way, in on the charter school scam to syphon off public funds (see, for example, Schools Matter). We are to accept that our only choice is between the irrationalism of technocrats and the “freedom” for venture capital to destroy the “contaminated land” of public schooling and, without restriction, let it plow the “clean, undeveloped land (greenfield)” that results as the public treasury is open to the likes of KIPP and Uncommon Schools.

Unless reforms takes as their starting point the articulation of the rights and responsibilities of all teachers, students, parents and administrators, a rationale discourse about improving education will not be forthcoming. In its place will be more disinformation about the problem being lack of choice, standards, “security,” and so on. The problem is not one of a lack of choice, but rather a lack of popular political power over their schools and other social institutions. Choice schemes–”Greenfield”-style reforms in Hess’s language–will only result in denying more children the right to education, denying parents and communities control over their education, resulting in even more segregation and inequality.

Related Posts:

• Evidence on the quality of for-profit higher education?
• Teachers have a right to unionize
• Inside Higher Ed: For-Profit Colleges Open Another Front
• Race to the Top Assessment Program: Part II – The Political Significance of Assessment Governance
• Race to the Top Assessment Program: Part 1 – Danger, Will Robinson, Irrational Discourse Ahead!

Jack Gerson and other reporters (as indicated) – September 25, 2009

Well over 5,000 students, staff and faculty packed the University of California Berkeley’s Sproul Plaza on September 24, 2009, to protest sweeping layoffs, deep cuts to academic and research programs, steep tuition hikes, and the privatization of public education in California.

More than 5,000 students, teachers and other staff protested against cuts in higher education and privatization at the University of California’s Berkeley campus on September 24, 2009. Above, some of the crowd at Sproul Plaza, Berkeley, during the day of protests. Substance photo by Jack Gerson.On this, the first day of fall semester classes, over a thousand faculty members and more than 1,100 graduate teaching assistants staged a walkout, coinciding with a one-day strike by University Professional and Technical workers.

Reports compiled by Chicago’s Labor Beat (see button on the right for their Home Page):

Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 06:51:58 -0700

Subject: Reports from around California (and the world) – The UC Walkout

From: Eric

On Thursday, September 24, 2009, protests shook all 10 campuses of the University of California. Prompted by a walk-out letter signed by over 1,200 faculty, and a strike by 12,000 union researchers, students and labor allies organized a massive day of action to re-prioritize the budget of the UC system and push back against privatization. UC Berkeley, in particular, saw thousands attend rallies and marches reminiscent of previous generations, while activists at 3 other UCs occupied campus buildings (one of which is still ongoing). Politicians all over the state were forced to respond, with UC admins blaming state legislators and vis-versa. Schwarzenegger dismissed the protesters as a “screaming special interest group,” while Gavin Newsom insinuated his support of the walkout, injecting the UC crisis into the 2010 Governor’s race. Seeing how this was the very first day of class for most UCs, it looks to be a very long school year.. especially if you’re on the wrong side of the bullhorn.

Here’s a collection up of some of the reports from today. There’s many more – please feel free to comment.

UC Wide

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/24/california-university-berkeley-budget-protest

http://www.sacbee.com/108/story/2204365.html

http://studentactivism.net/2009/09/24/reports-from-the-uc-walkout/

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/09/25/MNVU19SBEV.DTL

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/09/20/18622513.php

http://socialistworker.org/2009/09/25/thousands-join-uc-walkout

http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/video?id=7030684

http://extras.mercurynews.com/slideshows/news/2009/09/0925walkout/

http://news.google.com/news/search?aq=0z&pz=1&cf=all&ned=us&hl=en&q=uc+walkout&oq=uc

background info: http://labornotes.org/node/2459

UC BERKELEY

* Huge rally. Police estimate 5,000. March through streets of Berkeley, sit-down civil disobedience in front of campus, shutting down three main streets.

* All day picketing

* Over a half-dozen teach-ins (see titles: http://www.saveuc.org/teachout-sched.pdf)

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/09/24/MN2Q19S3FS.DTL

http://www.dailycal.org/article/106776/walkouts_vary_across_uc_campuses

http://www.insidebayarea.com/twitter/ci_13411072

http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2009-09-24/article/33824

http://twitpic.com/iyy8d

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APuKukByoQA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pERb1G0-UA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_w0CToZjCc

UC DAVIS

* All day picketing

* Teamsters electricians and others honored the strike and went home

* Rally/March with estimates from several hundred to over a thousand + bikes w/ sound systems

* Brief occupation of admin building

http://twitpic.com/iz6i9

http://www.news10.net/video/default.aspx?aid=82555

http://www.fox40.com/news/headlines/ktxl-news-ucbudget0924,0,6713606.story

UC IRVINE

* Faculty-Student Improv Show

* Rally (w/ estimates between 500 and 1000) outside admin building

http://www.upte.org/photogallery/index.html#original/05

http://twitpic.com/iz10h

UC LOS ANGELES

* Noon Rally (LA Times estimate 700 people)

* March to Chancellor’s office

* Occupation of Chancellor’s office results in forcing Chancellor to set a meeting.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-ucprotests25-2009sep25,0,3895472.story

http://media.dailybruin.com/dailybruin/img/2009/sep/24/walkoutcrowd_-_derek_liu.jpg

http://media.sacbee.com/smedia/2009/09/24/14/CaliforniaUniversity5.standalone.prod_affiliate.4.jpg

UC SANTA CRUZ

* City buses (UTU), UPS (Teamsters) and construction crews refused to cross picket lines.

* All Day Picketing

* Noon Rally with 300+ people

* 3:30pm second rally and march

* Ongoing occupation of building in the center of campus, with rally outside http://occupyCA.wordpress.com and http://wewanteverything.wordpress.com/

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/09/24/18623088.php

http://www.flickr.com/photos/melissarachelblack/sets/72157622449721648/

http://www.mercurynews.com/centralcoast/ci_13412921?nclick_check=1

UC SAN DIEGO

* All day picketing, joined by UNITE-HERE Local 30 members who’ve been boycotting the Manchester Grand Hyatt over similar issues.

* Rally w/ about 350 attendees

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjPJO2zwmkM

UC SAN FRANCISCO

* All day picketing

* Rally w/ about ~75 people

UC SANTA BARBARA

Rally with ~400 people

http://www.independent.com/news/2009/sep/24/protesters-target-uc-regents/

http://twitpic.com/iyz2p

UC RIVERSIDE

Rally (w/ widely ranging estimates – from 150 to 500 to 1000) followed by a teach-in.

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/09/25/qt/walkouts_across_u_of_california

http://www.sbsun.com/news/ci_13414178

UC MERCED

A small rally, but notable since Merced is the newest and smallest UC!

http://www.ksee24.com/news/local/61292127.html

LAWRENCE BERKELEY NATIONAL LAB (UC-managed)

UPTE Strike/Picketing/Protest

http://cbs5.com/local/UC.walkout.strike.2.1206109.html

TAIWAN

UC Education abroad students assembled and took a group picture.

http://tinyurl.com/yecgbxa

“The words we are holding up say, “Protect the UC, prevent fee increases” in traditional Chinese characters. We took the picture at the front gate of National Taiwan University, where we are all studying and have students from all the UC campuses except for San Francisco and Merced (we even have a student from CSU East Bay and a student from SF State).”

-

SOLIDARITY:

UNIV. of ARIZONA:

Rally w/ ~100 people against cuts and costs in the UA system, staged on 9/24 in solidarity w/ UC.

http://www.kold.com/Global/story.asp?S=11195684

SF STATE:

~75 students held a rally against cuts, costs, and the elimination of hundreds of classes in the Cal State system, and in solidarity w/ UC.

SF City College:

Rally against budget cuts and in solidarity with other educational institutions.

UNIV. of MICHIGAN:

Members of Michigan GEO, AFT Local #3550 took a group picture, with signs in solidarity.

http://tinyurl.com/y8ho329

-

QUOTES OF THE DAY:

“Walkout, Rally Hailed as Rebirth of UC Activism” (as if it ever died – Front Page story from the Berkeley Daily Planet)

“I’ve been here since 1972, and I’ve never seen anything like it.” – George Lakoff

“For most of UC, today was THE FIRST DAY OF CLASSES, so there was essentially no time to organize. That makes #UCwalkout even more amazing.” – @studentactivism

“Faculty, students and unions from the University of California’s 10 campuses including its two most prestigious, UCLA and Berkeley, joined forces in what was the biggest student protest for more than a generation… The scale of the protests has come as a shock to state authorities.” – The Guardian (UK)

“being president of the University of California is like being manager of a cemetery” – UC President Mark Yudof. (The whole interview is shockingly appalling.) See: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/27/magazine/27fob-q4-t.html?_r=1

http://www.ucfacultywalkout.com 

Related Posts:

• Evidence on the quality of for-profit higher education?
• Bruce Baker: Smart Guy (Gates) makes my list of “Dumbest Stuff I’ve Ever Read!”
• Teachers have a right to unionize
• Stephen Sawchuk: States Aim to Curb Collective Bargaining
• Labor Beat Chicago Video Exposes Duncan’s Record

As state tax revenues plummet, some lawmakers and higher-education leaders are once again looking at loosening the bonds between state governments and public colleges to save money and give colleges the freedom to bolster their bottom lines in new ways.

In light of the recent bailout of Wall Street, I wonder what kind of brain can propose more “market” as any sort of “cure”. In fact, privatization of the type discussed in the articles creates more problems, increasing inequality being only one.

But a key problem originates in the further blurring of the line between public and private, and in particular, the assumption that private entities can easily and naturally serve the public ends. Found in the article is the assumption that the purpose of education is unrelated to how society organizes its provision.

Those who seek to bring “market discipline” to k12 or higher education, argue, as the Frederick Hess (2002) does in his Progressive Policy Institute brief “Making Sense of the ‘Public’ in Public Education,” that:

Defenders of the status quo are often able to successfully attack choice-based reforms as “anti-public education” because Americans by and large believe that the public has some legitimate responsibility to ensure all children receive an adequate and appropriate education. Even such noted public critics as libertarians John Stuart Mill and Milton Friedman have always conceded there is some component of public good to education, and have argued for state funding and/or monitoring of educational mastery to ensure that all children are adequately served. However, this agreement poses a new challenge by demanding that we first determine what constitutes an adequate education and then consider, separately, how it ought to be provided. It is important to recognize that, in multiple sectors, legislators routinely craft policies intended to address public needs, but then rely upon a variety of public agencies and private firms to execute these policies. In such cases, we generally accept that a public service is being rendered regardless of the agent providing the service. For instance, we typically consider community bus services as public even if operated by a private vendor. Such reflection suggests the poverty of current conversations about what it is that makes public schools public. Simple-minded proclamations on the topic have encouraged would-be reformers and their critics to squabble over the symbolic banner of “public education” while shortchanging the public’s substantive concerns. (p. 3-4)

Kelderman continues:

Operating more like private institutions not only would be a buffer from the recession and the volatility of state budgets, some college officials argue, but also may well be vital to the survival of many public colleges.

Insisting that the governance and manner of securing funds for education will somehow not impact “quality” we read: “Those that seek to thrive in the future must earn money from a variety of sources and continually cut costs in ways that don’t harm the quality of instruction, says Philip J. Hanlon, vice provost for academic and budgetary affairs at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor, which gets just 7 percent, or $320-million, of its revenue from the state.” Instead of demanding that public funds be used for the public good and that funding for public higher education be increased, “leaders” offer the view that since things have degenerated to the point where much of the revenue for higher education comes from other sources, why not remove the limits of public oversight?

Some factual claims cited in the article:

“Public research universities in Colorado, Montana, New Hampshire, Oregon, and Vermont are so reliant on tuition that students are paying, on average, for more than 70 percent of the cost of their education, compared with a national average of 51 percent, according to the Delta Project on Postsecondary Education Costs, Productivity, and Accountability, a nonprofit group that studies how colleges spend their money. Students at private research universities pay, on average, nearly 56 percent of their educational costs, the project reported.”

After the 2001-2 recession, public universities in Colorado, Massachusetts, and Virginia exchanged operational freedom for reductions in public aid.

“While no public college is likely to free itself entirely from fiscal ties to its state, many of the nation’s largest public institutions, like Michigan, have evolved to operate nearly like private colleges,” Kelderman observes.

According to Kelderman, “the trend toward privatization has been widely discussed by public-college officials since at least the early 1990s, especially during nationwide recessions when state revenues have plummeted.” During that time “spending on health care and prison costs has climbed rapidly.” Even as public funding for public higher education has increased “in real dollars, it has diminished as a proportion of most state budgets.”

Now, with states facing budget shortfalls totaling as much as $350-billion in the current and coming fiscal years, lawmakers are looking hard for ways to trim spending on higher education. Even the federal stimulus package, which includes nearly $40-billion to offset cuts to education, has not done much to ease the pressure, which has prompted some lawmakers in Colorado and Michigan to suggest cutting flagship universities loose from state budgets entirely. While those ideas have not gained much traction, they reignited discussions about whether it was desirable, or even possible, for large universities to maintain their public status.

[...]

At the same time, some state lawmakers question why they should still underwrite the university at all as it raises more private dollars and increases tuition. A nine-member legislative panel [in Michigan] created last year to suggest major budget cuts included a recommendation to turn the university into a private institution, although some panelists thought that was not a realistic option. Similarly, a Colorado lawmaker proposed this year that the four public research universities there would perform much better if they were off the state dole. But that proposal, too, died quickly.

Later on, Kelderman writes: “While privatization has occurred in an ad hoc fashion in most of the country, a few states have moved purposely down that path, with mixed results.” He cites the example of Virginia, which initiated a program in 2005 that “gives its public colleges varying degrees of fiscal and administrative autonomy in exchange for agreeing to hold down tuition for resident students and to meet benchmarks in areas such as retention and graduation rates.”

It seems worth studying the trends pointed to in this article in relation to Obama’s plan for financing student aid. See his recent speech.

Related Posts:

• Inside Higher Ed: For-Profit Colleges Open Another Front
• Evidence on the quality of for-profit higher education?
• Teachers have a right to unionize
• Alan Singer: Charter Schools Don’t Do Miracles
• Broad Foundation: Facts on the Wrecking of Public Education