Skip repetitive navigational links
View: Next message | Previous More Hitsmessage
Next in topic | Previous More Hitsin topic
Next by same author | Previous More Hitsby same author
Previous page (November 2008, 2) | Back to main LRNASST-L page
Join or leave LRNASST-L (or change settings)
Reply | Post a new message
Search
Log in
Options:   Chronologically | Most recent first
Proportional font | Non-proportional font

Subject:

2-fer: Stuck on Student Learning & Grants, Scrutiny for Veterans Education

From:

Dan Kern <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

[log in to unmask]

Date:

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 07:23:27 -0600

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (231 lines)

Nov. 11, 2008


Stuck on Student Learning


By Peter <mailto:[log in to unmask]>  T. Ewell

It has been eight years since Measuring Up 2000 awarded every state a grade
of "Incomplete" in the Learning category to highlight the fact that the
nation lacks consistent measures of student learning in higher education.
Since then, the National Center for Public Policy in Higher Education has
been consistent in reporting progress on developing measures of student
learning, culminating in Measuring Up 2004 when we reported state-level
learning results for five states that participated in a national
demonstration project. To signify progress, we awarded a "Plus" (+) grade to
these five states and added six more "Plus" grades in Measuring Up 2006 to
recognize states that participated in the National Assessment of Adult
Literacy (NAAL) on a statewide basis.

We know that interest in assessment at the college level has grown in this
period. The Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA) and the National Survey of
Student Engagement (NSSE) had not been launched when we began our effort.
And stimulated, in part, by the report of the Commission
<http://insidehighered.com/news/focus/commission>  on the Future of Higher
Education convened by Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings, accreditors
and institutions are far more serious about the need to look at educational
results than they were back then.

But despite this apparent progress, an important dimension of collegiate
learning has gotten lost in recent debates about assessing learning. That is
the need for states and the nation to develop indicators of progress in
building "educational capital" - the levels of collective knowledge and
skills possessed by their citizenry as a whole.

In K-12 education, the states have exit examinations that ensure that high
school graduates meet minimum standards and that individual schools can be
held accountable. But state leaders also rely on measures like the National
Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) in order to benchmark progress,
identify strengths and weaknesses, and compare themselves to other states.
The Spellings Commission discussed these matters and recommended that more
states follow the approach to measuring educational capital pioneered by the
National Center's five-state demonstration project. The commission also
recommended increasing state participation in the NAAL, as well as
administering it more frequently. We need these kinds of collective measures
to keep our higher education policies pointed in the right direction and to
tell us where we are strong and weak.

Unfortunately, as a nation, we appear to be going backwards on these types
of measures. Only 6 states - down from 12 for the 1992 assessment - signed
up to be "oversampled" for the 2003 literacy test, which means that they
asked the test's sponsors to collect enough data from their states that they
could obtain a reliable state-level estimate of literacy. In addition, a
repeat administration of this important literacy assessment is nowhere in
sight. Despite promises to do so, moreover, the National Center for
Education Statistics (NCES) has yet to produce 50-state estimates of citizen
performance on NAAL prose literacy almost five years after the assessment
was administered.

Meanwhile, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)
is moving forward with an international feasibility study on collegiate
learning without <http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/04/21/oecd>  a
U.S. commitment to participate.

Individual state attention to this matter is equally uneven. A few states
continue to assess students using established examinations for which
national benchmarks are available. Among them are South Dakota, which
requires all students attending public universities to achieve a certain
standard on the ACT CAAP examination as a condition of graduation, and
Kentucky, which will replicate a variant of the Learning Model developed by
the National Center for its five-state demonstration project.

These states are joined by West Virginia, whose public institutions will
administer the CLA on a statewide basis next year, and Oregon, which is
experimenting as a state with portfolio measures in collaboration with the
Association of American Colleges and Universities (AACU). But Arkansas
abandoned its longstanding program of statewide testing centered on the ACT
CAAP last year and a recent SHEEO survey on this topic found state agency
engagement in assessment to be at an all-time low.

At least as important, states are doing assessment, where they are doing it
at all, to demonstrate institutional accountability. They are not measuring
learning to determine gaps in what their college-educated citizens as a
group know and can do, consistent with a public agenda for higher education.

This is equally true for the growing number of institutions that are holding
themselves accountable through such initiatives as the Voluntary System of
Accountability developed by the National Association of State Universities
and Land-Grant Colleges and the American Association of State Colleges and
Universities. However admirable these efforts may be from the standpoint of
responsible institutional accountability, they provide little real
information for policy making. And they are being undertaken largely for
political reasons - to blunt the recent attempts by the Department of
Education to impose new reporting requirements about student learning
through accreditation - rather than as part of a broader effort to
systematically improve instruction.

In short, events in the wake of the Spellings Commission have served to
politicize public debate about information on student learning and
attainment at precisely the point at which such information should be
collectively owned and generated. Nowhere has this condition been more
apparent than in the realm of developing longitudinal databases of students.
At a time when more than two-thirds of students earning baccalaureate
degrees have attended several institutions, we still lack the capacity to
track student progress on a national basis because of political opposition
masquerading as a concern about privacy. As 42 states have already
demonstrated, higher education agencies using today's information technology
are perfectly capable of creating powerful student unit record databases
that do not compromise security.

With America's competitive edge in producing college graduates eroding
steadily among our younger citizens, we need benchmarked information about
student attainment and learning more than ever. In the past decade, we have
developed the technical capacity to generate such information and the policy
wisdom to use it effectively. But, as a nation, we are no farther along on
producing it in 2008 than we were in 2000 when Measuring Up first awarded
every state an "Incomplete" in Learning.

Peter T. Ewell is the vice president at the National Center for Higher
Education Management Systems, a research and development center founded to
improve the management effectiveness of colleges and universities. He serves
on the National Advisory Group for Measuring Up 2008, the national and state
report card on higher education issued by the National Center for Public
Policy and Higher Education. Measuring Up 2008 will be released on December
3, when it will be available for viewing and download on the
<http://www.highereducation.org/>  National Center's Web site.

The original story and user comments can be viewed online at
http://insidehighered.com/views/2008/11/11/ewell
<http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2008/11/11/ewell> .

C Copyright 2008 Inside Higher Ed

Nov. 11, 2008


Grants, Scrutiny for Veterans Education


The new GI Bill is likely to bring an influx of veterans to college in 2009,
but there's precious little consensus about how best to help these students
succeed once they arrive on campus, according to the American Council on
Education.

ACE unveiled a program Monday that aims to grow programs that serve student
veterans. Perhaps more importantly, ACE officials say they're determined to
find out whether programs that purport to help veterans navigate through
higher education actually work.

With the help of funding from the Wal-Mart Foundation, ACE is offering a
total of $2.5 million in grants to institutions that will operate model
programs specifically designed for veterans on campus. Those programs could
be as diverse as on-campus veterans' organizations, peer mentoring groups
and counseling services geared toward veterans.

The one-time $100,000 grants will be distributed to colleges that agree to
publish an analysis of their programs' effectiveness, potentially examining
outcomes like graduation and retention rates.

"The intent is to have empirical data that can drive decisions on the
appropriateness of replicating those programs across sectors," said Jim
Selbe, assistant vice president of lifelong learning with ACE.

The grants will be awarded on a competitive basis, and a premium will be
placed on funding institutions that have clear plans for tracking outcomes,
Selbe said.

The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs tracks college-going rates for
veterans, but the outcomes for student veterans - and how those outcomes
might be affected by support programs - have not been followed closely,
Selbe said. There's also little definitive data about the prevalence of
veteran-specific programs across higher education, he said.

"Right now that's information that no one has," Selbe said.

Survey to Examine Span of Programs

A key prong of ACE's new initiative, called "Serving Those Who Serve: Higher
Education and America
<http://www.acenet.edu/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Press_Releases2&TEMPLATE=/CM/
ContentDisplay.cfm&CONTENTID=29868> 's Veterans," will be conducting a
national survey of colleges to identify the services and programs already
offered to veterans. ACE plans to make its findings public through seminars
and reports, but there's been no decision yet about whether to publish
institutional-level data that might begin to show which specific colleges
have the most robust veterans programs - and which ones have few or none at
all.

"I would say that we haven't come to a decision as to whether to engage in
that as well," Selbe said. "We're in the early stages."

A chief concern for ACE officials is whether veterans are fully aware of the
educational benefits that will be extended to them under the new GI Bill,
formally known as the Post-9/11
<http://www.gibill.va.gov/CH33/Post_911_Factsheet.pdf>  Veterans Educational
Assistance Act of 2008. The law, which goes into effect Aug. 1, 2009, would
provide funding for tuition and fees up to the cost of in-state tuition at
the most expensive public college in a veteran's state. ACE aims to spread
information about the new benefits through a newly developed Web site,
supported by an $800,000 grant from the Lumina Foundation for Education.

"I think there is a big challenge to make sure that there is effective
communication to all the individuals who are eligible, and to [help them]
understand that college is a possibility for them and/or for their
dependents," said Molly Corbett Broad, president of ACE.

In the most recent National Survey of Veterans,
<http://www1.va.gov/vetdata/page.cfm?pg=5>  released in 2001, fewer than
half of veterans said they were satisfied with their ability to get the
information they needed about benefits. The newest of cohort veterans
surveyed at that time were those from the Gulf War, 30 percent of whom said
they had received training or education benefits. Gulf War veterans had the
lowest education benefits participation rate of any cohort on record, dating
back to World War II, after which 42 percent of veterans said they'd
received such benefits.

- Jack <mailto:[log in to unmask]>  Stripling

The original story and user comments can be viewed online at
http://insidehighered.com/news/2008/11/11/vets
<http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/11/11/vets> .

C Copyright 2008 Inside Higher Ed


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To access the LRNASST-L archives or User Guide, or to change your
subscription options (including subscribe/unsubscribe), point your web browser to
http://www.lists.ufl.edu/archives/lrnasst-l.html

To contact the LRNASST-L owner, email [log in to unmask]

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011, Week 3
January 2011, Week 2
January 2011, Week 1
January 2011
December 2010, Week 5
December 2010, Week 4
December 2010, Week 3
December 2010, Week 2
December 2010, Week 1
November 2010, Week 5
November 2010, Week 4
November 2010, Week 3
November 2010, Week 2
November 2010, Week 1
October 2010, Week 5
October 2010, Week 4
October 2010, Week 3
October 2010, Week 2
October 2010, Week 1
September 2010, Week 5
September 2010, Week 4
September 2010, Week 3
September 2010, Week 2
September 2010, Week 1
August 2010, Week 5
August 2010, Week 4
August 2010, Week 3
August 2010, Week 2
August 2010, Week 1
July 2010, Week 5
July 2010, Week 4
July 2010, Week 3
July 2010, Week 2
July 2010, Week 1
June 2010, Week 5
June 2010, Week 4
June 2010, Week 3
June 2010, Week 2
June 2010, Week 1
May 2010, Week 4
May 2010, Week 3
May 2010, Week 2
May 2010, Week 1
April 2010, Week 5
April 2010, Week 4
April 2010, Week 3
April 2010, Week 2
April 2010, Week 1
March 2010, Week 5
March 2010, Week 4
March 2010, Week 3
March 2010, Week 2
March 2010, Week 1
February 2010, Week 4
February 2010, Week 3
February 2010, Week 2
February 2010, Week 1
January 2010, Week 5
January 2010, Week 4
January 2010, Week 3
January 2010, Week 2
January 2010, Week 1
December 2009, Week 5
December 2009, Week 4
December 2009, Week 3
December 2009, Week 2
December 2009, Week 1
November 2009, Week 5
November 2009, Week 4
November 2009, Week 3
November 2009, Week 2
November 2009, Week 1
October 2009, Week 5
October 2009, Week 4
October 2009, Week 3
October 2009, Week 2
October 2009, Week 1
September 2009, Week 5
September 2009, Week 4
September 2009, Week 3
September 2009, Week 2
September 2009, Week 1
August 2009, Week 5
August 2009, Week 4
August 2009, Week 3
August 2009, Week 2
August 2009, Week 1
July 2009, Week 5
July 2009, Week 4
July 2009, Week 3
July 2009, Week 2
July 2009, Week 1
June 2009, Week 5
June 2009, Week 4
June 2009, Week 3
June 2009, Week 2
June 2009, Week 1
May 2009, Week 5
May 2009, Week 4
May 2009, Week 3
May 2009, Week 2
May 2009, Week 1
April 2009, Week 5
April 2009, Week 4
April 2009, Week 3
April 2009, Week 2
April 2009, Week 1
March 2009, Week 5
March 2009, Week 4
March 2009, Week 3
March 2009, Week 2
March 2009, Week 1
February 2009, Week 4
February 2009, Week 3
February 2009, Week 2
February 2009, Week 1
January 2009, Week 5
January 2009, Week 4
January 2009, Week 3
January 2009, Week 2
January 2009, Week 1
December 2008, Week 5
December 2008, Week 4
December 2008, Week 3
December 2008, Week 2
December 2008, Week 1
November 2008, Week 5
November 2008, Week 4
November 2008, Week 3
November 2008, Week 2
November 2008, Week 1
October 2008, Week 5
October 2008, Week 4
October 2008, Week 3
October 2008, Week 2
October 2008, Week 1
September 2008, Week 5
September 2008, Week 4
September 2008, Week 3
September 2008, Week 2
September 2008, Week 1
August 2008, Week 5
August 2008, Week 4
August 2008, Week 3
August 2008, Week 2
August 2008, Week 1
July 2008, Week 5
July 2008, Week 4
July 2008, Week 3
July 2008, Week 2
July 2008, Week 1
June 2008, Week 5
June 2008, Week 4
June 2008, Week 3
June 2008, Week 2
June 2008, Week 1
May 2008, Week 5
May 2008, Week 4
May 2008, Week 3
May 2008, Week 2
May 2008, Week 1
April 2008, Week 5
April 2008, Week 4
April 2008, Week 3
April 2008, Week 2
April 2008, Week 1
March 2008, Week 5
March 2008, Week 4
March 2008, Week 3
March 2008, Week 2
March 2008, Week 1
February 2008, Week 5
February 2008, Week 4
February 2008, Week 3
February 2008, Week 2
February 2008, Week 1
January 2008, Week 5
January 2008, Week 4
January 2008, Week 3
January 2008, Week 2
January 2008, Week 1
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997
September 1997
August 1997
July 1997
June 1997
May 1997
April 1997
March 1997
February 1997
January 1997
December 1996
November 1996
October 1996
September 1996
August 1996
July 1996
June 1996
May 1996
April 1996
March 1996
February 1996
January 1996
December 1995
November 1995
October 1995
September 1995
August 1995
July 1995
June 1995
May 1995
April 1995
March 1995
February 1995
January 1995

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTS.UFL.EDU

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager