The rhetoric of reform..........

Tinto’ article on rethinking the first year of college brings forward the thought that post secondary institutions are reflecting on factors within their control to create a successful academic first year for students. He reports that currently 56% of students drop out before their 2nd year. They leave for a variety of reasons; he notes that reasons related to academics are increasing. His comments reminded me of an article I read a couple of months ago from the Chronicle of Higher Education (4-23-07). The author (Rona Wilensky) contends that maybe college for everyone is not the answer. She explained that the way we currently approach teaching and learning in college is not conducive for students who are ill prepared for the academic work.

Both Tinto and Wilensky realize that rather than trying to change the student who comes to the institution, maybe we should think about changing what happens to the learner when they arrive. Tinto’s discussion about creating learning communities as a hopeful intervention for change is a start. Wilensky suggest that we reconsider how we think about college preparation. Instead of the deeply rooted assumptions that academic skills defined by “academic prodigies, reflect some Platonic ideal of public education.” She recommends an emphasis on the knowledge and skills that reflect the needs of 21st century citizens with assurance that all students attain foundational skills. Tinto and Wilensky are tinkering with needed changes, but to bring about change of substance and sustainability, deeper issues must be uncovered.

Paul Tough’s article on the reform ideas of the political parties---explores some deeper issues and hopeful ideas. The embedded roots of poverty and the social behavior of the poor will need to be addressed. A continued attempt at reform through the school house door is a narrow approach and does not reach the core of the problem. Heckman, Neuman, and Canada propose ideas that weave a tighter cloth for supporting the interventions needed for families stuck in poverty. It appears to cost more, but the cost of not facing the comprehensive problem will be disastrous. Hmmm…It may not be about the direct cost—as Tough noted “there is no natural constituency for the initiative: no union or interest group that stands to land new jobs or new contracts, no deep-pocketed philanthropy devoted to spreading the message.” OUCH!