Obama's upcoming community college plan

[SKL]

This wouldn't help people who don't qualify for student loans, yet don't have the cash on hand to pay for CC. 

 

What if students had to sign acknowledging that if they didn't make a minimum GPA they would automatically have a loan at the end of the semester that will reimburse the CC for the semester?

 

Now see, I'm going to come across like a liberal here, but realistically, the "pay only if you fail" thing is backwards.  If you fail, you are going to end up in a minimum wage job with no means of paying, default / go bankrupt, and have sucky credit for the foreseeable future.  If you graduate, you're going to make more money and be able to pay, and if you're reasonable, you'll see that payment as a reasonable investment in your future.

 

One of the things that need reform is the way institutions of "learning" woo folks who really aren't qualified, help them get loans, take the loan money, and are out of the picture once the loans come due and the individual can't pay.  Making tuition "free" to the student removes the issue of unserviceable loans at that level.  However, the issue of whether the individual should actually be spending his time in school is not addressed.  Let's be honest, CC is *not* such a good investment for some individuals.  How is that going to be handled?

[6packofun]

Dh and I were talking about this and 2 things crossed our minds.  First, if there is no incentive to finish, is CC going to be High School 2.0, possibly even more obnoxious because of the people taking advantage of it just because it's free but no real motivation to do well/get further?  Not the majority, but enough to make it an annoying way to get educated?  lol

 

And second, why aren't there more financial aid opportunities for those who want to study a trade?  My ds20 wants to take classes at a great trade school and it says that only the Pell Grant applies, otherwise get loans.  No significant scholarships.  So someone who wants to learn a trade and maybe enter the workforce sooner has to potentially pay more out of pocket than someone who wantd to get a 4-yr degree in whatever floats their boat but doesn't have great employment potential and their food and housing gets paid for, too?  (I'm sure there are some exceptions to some trade schools out there, but not across the board as far as I know.)

[foxbridgeacademy]

The educational requirements in the rest of the Industrialized world already are higher, WE are behind.  

 

This is something I've actually been a proponent of since I found out my parents couldn't pay for my College and I got married at 18 so I could be considered an independent student, yeah that went well.  Anything that I can do to help my children achieve their goals, even if it means I eat like a college student, I will do.  Free CC?  Means I won't have to scrimp and save and borrow from 401k (we don't have a 401k to borrow from, yet) in the hopes that when the time comes I can pay for a semester of school.  

[QueenCat]

The educational requirements in the rest of the Industrialized world already are higher, WE are behind.  

 

Very much so, and it is something that definitely needs to be addressed in a significant way. Many like to blame it on the fact that we teach "all", including children with disabilities, but it goes much further. Our overall standards are low compared to many "first world" countries.

[Audrey]

I worked my way through college too. But, the cost of my four year university has increased MUCH more than the minimum wage. It would be much more difficult now than it was then.

 

 

We went to the same school.  When I started there an undergrad credit was $30.  I could make that in tips in one busy night of waitressing or (later) bartending.  It was a reasonable amount.  Now, according to their website, it is almost $250 per undergrad credit, plus all the other fees involved that I don't remember paying then.  That's not do-able on a student job, IMO. 

[Mrs Mungo]

I think that the federal budget is large enough for us to allocate resources to programs which help families in meaningful ways without increasing taxes. This is a relatively small proposal compared to so many other line items in the the federal budget.

Someone mentioned Halliburton earlier. Honestly, some people here would drop dead of shock if they knew how much some of the contractors we know make and for what. Let's cut out some of that crap (a lot of it is *crap*).

[Mrs Mungo]

We went to the same school. When I started there an undergrad credit was $30. I could make that in tips in one busy night of waitressing or (later) bartending. It was a reasonable amount. Now, according to their website, it is almost $250 per undergrad credit, plus all the other fees involved that I don't remember paying then. That's not do-able on a student job, IMO.

I would have given a specific number the other day, but when I went to the tuition site, I couldn't even figure out how much I would have been paying. The fee schedule seems incredibly unclear, and I am a pretty intelligent adult with lots of life experience. We should make universities do away with a lot of these extraneous "fees" and call more of it "tuition."

[Matryoshka]

Maybe they'll change the wording regarding fees/tuition so that it still gets covered?  Something such as "tuition and/or enrollment fees" (since that's the $46 per unit is called at our local CC) would probably cover all the bases.

 

Is CA the only state that has resident "fees" in lieu of tuition?  Anyone?

 

Well, MA does not have free tuition, but it does offer it (at the State Uni, not CC level) to anyone who scores well enough on the MCAS (in future maybe  this will switch to the new CC-aligned exams).  Anyway, the cost for the flagship state Uni is a bit over $24,000.  Tuition is only $1,714.  Fees are over $11,000, and room and board another $11,000.  So, yeah, so great that we get "free tuition" (both my kids who took the MCAS so far would qualify).  Lowers the actual cost less than 8%.  Whoop-dee-flippin'-doo.

 

I mean, what the heck is "tuition" supposed to pay for if the "curriculum fee" is over 10x more than "tuition"?  Almost $10K for curriculum?  But I'm already paying "tuition" for the courses, and I have to pay for my own books as well, so what is that $10K for???  :confused1:

 

 

ETA: For jollies, I just looked up the payment structure at our CC.  Some of you are paying so little per credit-hour at the CC I can't believe it!  Well, it turns out tuition at our CC is indeed pretty darn cheap at $24/credit.  But the fees per credit are $157, which adds up to $181 per credit, or $543 per typical 3-credit course.  :glare:  

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Someone mentioned Halliburton earlier. Honestly, some people here would drop dead of shock if they knew how much some of the contractors we know make and for what. Let's cut out some of that crap (a lot of it is *crap*).

 

I know exactly how much some of them make, and it is absurd.  Oddly enough, those contracts have support from certain politicians who have been against federal pay raises for the past several years.

[Audrey]

I would have given a specific number the other day, but when I went to the tuition site, I couldn't even figure out how much I would have been paying. The fee schedule seems incredibly unclear, and I am a pretty intelligent adult with lots of life experience. We should make universities do away with a lot of these extraneous "fees" and call more of it "tuition."

 

I agree.  That's another thing that has changed. It's not just our alma mater, either.  It seems to be everywhere (including up here).  It's almost like they're trying to hide the real cost.  That's a whole other thread, though, I suppose.  What exactly IS the cost of university?  And, are we allowed to figure it out BEFORE we jump in the deep end? 

[Mrs Mungo]

And, are we allowed to figure it out BEFORE we jump in the deep end?

No. Just as a random example, my eldest starts back to school on Monday. We bought her books on Friday. Friday night she received an email that her anthropology professor had changed, and she would need different books.

[Aelwydd]

Very affluent families have more than their share of kids with drug or alcohol problems, or trouble with the law.  All that cash and no obligations is not always a good thing. 

 

My post said nothing about wealthy families handing cash over sans obligations.  I did mention how many wealthy families consider their 18 year old children to be investments in the family's economic success. I also mentioned examples of such investment, such as preparation and support of ongoing education and professional development, which I would hope would at least infer responsibilities on part of the child.  The most highly successful people in society rarely get there on their own, without the involvement and patronage of other interested parties (like their parents, for example).  They also rarely get there without their own ambition and effort. 

 

Of course, there are the cliched "wild child" types, who tend to cause much drama in their families and a lot of annoyance, because they don't take their responsibilities seriously, and either drink or spend their money away.  Also, there is the x factor of genetic preponderance to play into the equation of addiction. But, it seems to me that,  overall, substance abuse is more strongly correlated to poverty, not affluence. 

 

In any case, I find I'm personally more inclined to help my son get ahead as much as I can, without incurring the debt I did in my early 20's.  To that end, I have told him as long as he is pursuing his studies and/or professional development, we actually expect him to live with us.  Dangerous or destructive behavior is a different animal.  We would still be there to support him getting therapy and whatever help necessary, but I'm not talking here about financially supporting substance abuse or something of that nature.

[LucyStoner]

//

[LucyStoner]

My post said nothing about wealthy families handing cash over sans obligations. I did mention how many wealthy families consider their 18 year old children to be investments in the family's economic success. I also mentioned examples of such investment, such as preparation and support of ongoing education and professional development, which I would hope would at least infer responsibilities on part of the child. The most highly successful people in society rarely get there on their own, without the involvement and patronage of other interested parties (like their parents, for example). They also rarely get there without their own ambition and effort.

 

Of course, there are the cliched "wild child" types, who tend to cause much drama in their families and a lot of annoyance, because they don't take their responsibilities seriously, and either drink or spend their money away. Also, there is the x factor of genetic preponderance to play into the equation of addiction. But, it seems to me that, overall, substance abuse is more strongly correlated to poverty, not affluence.

 

 

I agree with you but would point out that substance abuse is a very common self medication for the pain that so often accompanies poverty. It was adopting a (admittedly annoying) moralistic straight edge stance that got me through ages 13-safely into addiction free adulthood. It would have been really easy for me to make another set of choices there and tumble into addiction.

[PeacefulChaos]

The educational requirements in the rest of the Industrialized world already are higher, WE are behind.  

 

 

 

And?

I'm not saying that to be argumentative... I'm really wondering.  Like, what educational requirements are higher?  You have to have a higher degree for jobs?  Or the actual standards of learning (for lack of a better word) are higher?

What would it do for us to be more competitive on that?  What would it change?

[PeacefulChaos]

My post said nothing about wealthy families handing cash over sans obligations.  I did mention how many wealthy families consider their 18 year old children to be investments in the family's economic success. I also mentioned examples of such investment, such as preparation and support of ongoing education and professional development, which I would hope would at least infer responsibilities on part of the child.  The most highly successful people in society rarely get there on their own, without the involvement and patronage of other interested parties (like their parents, for example).  They also rarely get there without their own ambition and effort. 

 

Of course, there are the cliched "wild child" types, who tend to cause much drama in their families and a lot of annoyance, because they don't take their responsibilities seriously, and either drink or spend their money away.  Also, there is the x factor of genetic preponderance to play into the equation of addiction. But, it seems to me that,  overall, substance abuse is more strongly correlated to poverty, not affluence. 

 

In any case, I find I'm personally more inclined to help my son get ahead as much as I can, without incurring the debt I did in my early 20's.  To that end, I have told him as long as he is pursuing his studies and/or professional development, we actually expect him to live with us.  Dangerous or destructive behavior is a different animal.  We would still be there to support him getting therapy and whatever help necessary, but I'm not talking here about financially supporting substance abuse or something of that nature.

 

I think this is an interesting take.  I guess I never would have thought that the children of more affluent families would be the ones to take their education seriously, especially now when the college professors I know are having moms call them about grades and stuff.  

 

I don't think the parents are more likely to value an education, though.  I'd see the possibility that they'd be more likely to try to push an education on a child who didn't want it because 'it's what we do'.  But I think the high value placed on education is pretty even all over the spectrum.  

 

We're in the now-nearly-nonexistent 'working' class.  Lower/middle.  DH is head of maintenance at a nursing facility - he used to own a construction company.  So we want to do what we can for our kids' education (which is why we homeschool) but there are limitations on that financially unless things change for us.  But there are many other things we will be able to do, and I don't know anyone who ascribes to the 'kick them out at 18' mentality.  That's very foreign to me.

 

 

I just thought of this - would the CC tuition be tied to a certain county or range of where they live?  That makes me wonder if some people may actually move in order to be able to go to a good CC.  Because I'll be honest, I'd consider it if that were the case.  Just a random thought.

[Aelwydd]

I think this is an interesting take.  I guess I never would have thought that the children of more affluent families would be the ones to take their education seriously, especially now when the college professors I know are having moms call them about grades and stuff.  

 

I don't think the parents are more likely to value an education, though.  I'd see the possibility that they'd be more likely to try to push an education on a child who didn't want it because 'it's what we do'.  But I think the high value placed on education is pretty even all over the spectrum.  

 

We're in the now-nearly-nonexistent 'working' class.  Lower/middle.  DH is head of maintenance at a nursing facility - he used to own a construction company.  So we want to do what we can for our kids' education (which is why we homeschool) but there are limitations on that financially unless things change for us.  But there are many other things we will be able to do, and I don't know anyone who ascribes to the 'kick them out at 18' mentality.  That's very foreign to me.

 

 

I just thought of this - would the CC tuition be tied to a certain county or range of where they live?  That makes me wonder if some people may actually move in order to be able to go to a good CC.  Because I'll be honest, I'd consider it if that were the case.  Just a random thought.

 

 

It's not that children of more affluent families take their education more seriously than the rest of us.  (Although, I would also point out here that from what I have read and observed, the nature of the education received by truly elite and wealthy families is worlds away from what you or I would experience.  The kinds of schools these families go to are not geared to train up the next generation of engineers, teachers, nurses, or small business entrepreneurs.  These schools groom their students to perform on macro economic and political scale.  Basically, they are the next generation of Powers That Be.)  Rather, it's that the families are fully prepared and determined to see their children's education and preparation fully realized.  Which is totally in keeping with pushing education on their child.  They don't merely hope--they expect their children to attend Ivies, and then graduate to become high powered laywers, executives, politicians, international financiers, etc.

 

I'm not kidding myself my family would ever come near to that particular social stratosphere, lol. I'm just hoping to avoid the pitfalls of how some parts of the American ideals of individualism can actually work against building financial independence for my ds.  I'm 37 years old, and I don't expect to reach that point for myself and dh.  However, I'd like to give my ds a chance to break out of the middle class trap, and maybe get to a place where he can enjoy relative professional and economic autonomy, in the sense that he can have money work for him, rather than him always working for money. If that makes sense.

 

I don't doubt you and your dh are doing everything you can for your kids as well.  It's a highly competitive world for sure.  As far as the "kick them out at 18," I've seen that attitude amongst a certain subset when I was growing up in NC, and have seen it to a lessor degree here in a large city in TX.  FaithManor, I believe, has shared her direct experiences of that same mindset where she happens to live.  It's a huge handicap to those 18 year olds who find themselves in the situation where they can't afford college but also can't find work to support themselves.

 

I'm curious about the question of how CC tuition would be tied to residence as well.  Frankly, here where we are at, there is already the opportunity for kids to either do dual enrollment, or even go to CC "high schools," that are basically a small high school within the larger CC campus.  Both these options are already "free," in that they are paid for as secondary education by the state and local ISD taxes.  Several high schools here also offer International Baccalaureate programs, as well as tons of AP classes, and also multiple online public charter schools as well.  There are at least 9 CCs, plus several public 4 year universities in the DFW Metroplex. Most universities here accept transfer credit from dual enrollment in high school, and/or AP and IB exam credits.  So, the "free CC" would likely only affect a moderate number of students here.  But in other places, where educational options are much more limited, I'm sure the demand might mean a scramble by some folks for "better" options.

[PeacefulChaos]

 They don't merely hope--they expect their children to attend Ivies, and then graduate to become high powered laywers, executives, politicians, international financiers, etc.

 

Yeah, I can definitely see that.  That's a definite aspect of it that I'm not a fan of - I'm just too free spirited to try to push stuff like that on my kids.   :D

 

I don't doubt you and your dh are doing everything you can for your kids as well.  It's a highly competitive world for sure.  As far as the "kick them out at 18," I've seen that attitude amongst a certain subset when I growing up in NC, and have seen it to a lessor degree here in a large city in TX.  FaithManor, I believe, has shared her direct experiences of that same mindset where she happens to live.  It's a huge handicap to those 18 year olds who find themselves in the situation where they can't afford college but also can't find work to support themselves.

 

That's so unfortunate.   :(

  

 

:)

[Hikin' Mama]

 

I'm sorry, but I have a difficult time comprehending how some people on here don't want to see certain people educated. I'm guessing (just my opinion) that some think they are better than others because they have money (most likely always have had) so they think the poor should be kept poor so they can feel superior to them. I think it is sad that anyone would have this view

 

I'm not sure who said or implied this in this thread. Will you please quote them?

[SKL]

Yeah, I was poor and used student loans and jobs to get my education (and paid them off).  From my experience and observations, being invested in one's own education (whether by working or borrowing a real loan or both) makes one value one's education and take it seriously.

 

I can't stop rich people from paying their kids' way, and as for my own kids, now that my income registers high (business owner), student loans etc. will not be available for them, so I will probably have to help them in some way, thanks to the inflated cost of higher education.  But that does not mean that my preference for investment in oneself is not valid, or that I only believe not-rich people's kids should do it.

 

I would be in favor of expanding reasonable work-study opportunities rather than just giving a handout/handup.  The idea of giving healthy adults something for nothing (as an entitlement) just sounds unhealthy on many levels.

 

I also don't like the fact that 2 years of "free" CC really only stands to benefit a certain class of people.  Undoubtedly it will be paid for at the expense of those families who won't stand to benefit from this entitlement, thus making it harder for those families' kids to finance their education.  Yes, that is how taxes work, but I'm not so sure it leads to a better educated society overall.  I mean, we talk about improving where we stand educationally with other countries, but do those other countries reach their competitive positions via two extra years of very basic education offered to adults who have already received 13 years of free public school?  I don't think so.

[foxbridgeacademy]

 

 

I also don't like the fact that 2 years of "free" CC really only stands to benefit a certain class of people.  Undoubtedly it will be paid for at the expense of those families who won't stand to benefit from this entitlement, thus making it harder for those families' kids to finance their education.  Yes, that is how taxes work, but I'm not so sure it leads to a better educated society overall.  I mean, we talk about improving where we stand educationally with other countries, but do those other countries reach their competitive positions via two extra years of very basic education offered to adults who have already received 13 years of free public school?  I don't think so.

No, you're right they don't.  They get 4 years paid for and in some European countries they even get free Masters degrees.  Because their country values education and knows that a "hand out" increases the persons income which increases their tax contribution which is good for the government.  

[TranquilMind]

My post said nothing about wealthy families handing cash over sans obligations.  I did mention how many wealthy families consider their 18 year old children to be investments in the family's economic success. I also mentioned examples of such investment, such as preparation and support of ongoing education and professional development, which I would hope would at least infer responsibilities on part of the child.  The most highly successful people in society rarely get there on their own, without the involvement and patronage of other interested parties (like their parents, for example).  They also rarely get there without their own ambition and effort. 

 

Of course, there are the cliched "wild child" types, who tend to cause much drama in their families and a lot of annoyance, because they don't take their responsibilities seriously, and either drink or spend their money away.  Also, there is the x factor of genetic preponderance to play into the equation of addiction. But, it seems to me that,  overall, substance abuse is more strongly correlated to poverty, not affluence. 

 

In any case, I find I'm personally more inclined to help my son get ahead as much as I can, without incurring the debt I did in my early 20's.  To that end, I have told him as long as he is pursuing his studies and/or professional development, we actually expect him to live with us.  Dangerous or destructive behavior is a different animal.  We would still be there to support him getting therapy and whatever help necessary, but I'm not talking here about financially supporting substance abuse or something of that nature.

I think I disagree.  .  Substance abuse on an ongoing basis requires money.  One of my kids attended a school that happened to contain many students of lower income families.  While they had other problems, there were few problems with drugs or alcohol. They couldn't afford it, is what she said. 

 

Sure, we are helping our kids as much as we can too.  And we sold rental properties along the way (which were a huge investment of time and money in themselves). 

[Aelwydd]

I think I disagree. . Substance abuse on an ongoing basis requires money. One of my kids attended a school that happened to contain many students of lower income families. While they had other problems, there were few problems with drugs or alcohol. They couldn't afford it, is what she said.

 

Sure, we are helping our kids as much as we can too. And we sold rental properties along the way (which were a huge investment of time and money in themselves).

No, they can't afford it. Which is why many in that position, such as a relative of mine who was a heroin addict, resort to theft, and other acts of desperation to procure the money. Drugs and prostitution, pornography, theft, etc. often go hand in hand.

[FaithManor]

 

 

I don't doubt you and your dh are doing everything you can for your kids as well.  It's a highly competitive world for sure.  As far as the "kick them out at 18," I've seen that attitude amongst a certain subset when I was growing up in NC, and have seen it to a lessor degree here in a large city in TX.  FaithManor, I believe, has shared her direct experiences of that same mindset where she happens to live.  It's a huge handicap to those 18 year olds who find themselves in the situation where they can't afford college but also can't find work to support themselves.

 

I'm curious about the question of how CC tuition would be tied to residence as well.  Frankly, here where we are at, there is already the opportunity for kids to either do dual enrollment, or even go to CC "high schools," that are basically a small high school within the larger CC campus.  Both these options are already "free," in that they are paid for as secondary education by the state and local ISD taxes.  Several high schools here also offer International Baccalaureate programs, as well as tons of AP classes, and also multiple online public charter schools as well.  There are at least 9 CCs, plus several public 4 year universities in the DFW Metroplex. Most universities here accept transfer credit from dual enrollment in high school, and/or AP and IB exam credits.  So, the "free CC" would likely only affect a moderate number of students here.  But in other places, where educational options are much more limited, I'm sure the demand might mean a scramble by some folks for "better" options.

Yes, I have commented before, and it's common practice here.

 

This leaves a whole bunch of kids working 20-30 hours per week at minimum wage all crammed together in an apartment trying to make ends meet while attending the crappiest excuse of a "college" - a community college here that is mind bogglingly awful but makes a lot of future employment promises that are completely untrue and none of the local employers want their graduates - taking out loans because their parents won't fill out FASFA but they can't be legally declared independent (it's very, very hard to do for 18 and 19 year olds that aren't married because the government and higher education have determined to get into the parental wallet and punish those kids who do not have access) so they qualify for zero aid. They take out a lot of loan money, find out that their diploma, certificate, license, or AA is not worth the paper it's printed on and now after working four years to get two years worth of credit are still working the same dead end minimum wage jobs but have student loans on top of their already barely subsistence level existence.

 

It.is.nuts.

 

In my area, the problem is that the parents don't want to wake up. They all went to work at 17/18 years of age for one of the big three automakers or their subsidiaries and support industries, made excellent money from a young age, invested in pensions, and retired about the time their own kids are graduating usually having paid off the house early. They work a side job for extra cash and really, this is the life they dream of for their children. They think if they work long enough in crappy jobs that at some point some factory some place is going to have an opening and their kid will get that magic ticket. Meanwhile they haven't bothered to educate themselves or REFUSE to educate themselves about the fact that those jobs are leaving in droves and the manufacturing jobs left are high tech and require additional training from trade schools and community colleges, and have much more strict hiring practices than ever before. For every one job that opens up, there are 200-300 applicants in our area (sometimes more) and almost none of them are qualified which means many times someone is imported from a different part of the country that holds the specialty license or training necessary.

 

These parents were independent at 18, bought houses in their very early 20's, drove nice cars from the outset, etc. They think their kids should somehow just magically be able to manage this too. Reality has an ugly message that they do not want to hear, and the resentment at the thought that they might have to help their child get a leg up even if it's just allowing them to continue to live at home a few years while they receive their post-high school training is offensive.

 

My problem with the program is that not all community colleges are created equal. The one down the road from us should not get a single penny of taxpayer dollars. Period. What it gets now is a travesty. But, I'm all for expanding help for students at worthy community colleges. Now that said, I'm also all for expanding federal and state help to students at four year universities. There are degrees that are not easy to achieve through transfer because the cycle of classes is strict, many cc's can't teach all of the necessary prerequisites, etc. It's not as though kids in engineering at Michigan Tech and Virginia Tech do not need help! Many of them are going to be drowning in debt. But, that's also an issue of tuition, room, and board so far outpacing wages that it's staggering! Aid has not been increased in so long that it's NUTS!!! The only thing that has increased is the predatory lending practices of institutions like Sallie Mae, and the dishonesty of financial aid departments that tout their product and manipulate students with little experience into taking out mega loans while lying about what the stats say about future employment opportunities in their field AND starting wages.

 

Case in point, one of the schools that ds was looking at touts during their financial aid seminar that their graduates starting wages are an average of X. Not true...college factual, college data, and several other websites that collect this information show consistently that the average starting wage of their graduates is $20,000.00 per year less than they claim. LIES! And that $20,000 less is a huge issue when you have student loan payments of $600.00 a month.

 

It's a buyer beware situation out there and the young need guidance.

 

So, I am all for expanding assistance for both college and trades in the form of grants and linked to reasonable academic progress in order to renew it each semester. BUT, it needs to be spent at institutions that are doing their job and not just raking in money while handing out snake oil. I am not certain how the dregs can be separated out, but this needs to happen both for the sake of the student and the taxpayer.

[SKL]

No, you're right they don't.  They get 4 years paid for and in some European countries they even get free Masters degrees.  Because their country values education and knows that a "hand out" increases the persons income which increases their tax contribution which is good for the government.  

 

Not everyone gets "free" college though, in countries where it's "free."  Many get tracked to trade school while still in high school, and once they graduate they are prepared to work a blue-collar job.

 

I don't think we want to go that route here; we like the idea of being able to choose from various paths after becoming mature enough to make good choices.  But we pay for that.

[FaithManor]

And let me just say that any program like this is a band-aid on a big gash. Adding two years at the adult end when the foundation is poor for many students may help them do some better, but not significantly better because once employed, one needs to remain employed and part of that has to do with the foundation. So, we've got to fix K-8 in particular because I know an awful lot of high school teachers that want to challenge the kids and do true high school level work, but can't because when half the class shows up in algebra 1 and can't do arithmetic much less any mathematics whatsoever, or biology with ZERO foundational science knowledge, and reading comprehension skills in the gutter, they can't magically make them ready for trade school or college in four years. That has to be fixed and until it is, we are just slapping gauze on wounds and trying to put enough pressure on it to keep the hemorrhage under control.

 

The sheer number of 90 level (ie. middle and high school work) course that CC's have to offer in order to finally get students ready for 100 level classes is staggering. I know of three local colleges that have to offer three reading comprehension classes, three remedial math classes, and two remedial English on top of two 90 level writing courses in order to get some students up to freshman. That's a lot of money and effort just to finally be ready for an introductory course! 24 credits...nearly an entire year of college.

 

So we need to fix the foundation and that must, must, must be a part of the equation and a lot of what the feds propose in that regard is NOT helpful (I'd be all for repealing No Child Left Behind for starters). We may have to slap some band-aids for now in order to help adults, but this is the tip of the iceberg if we don't do something about the abysmal state of K-8 education in the U.S.

 

And of course all of the above leads to some employers looking at a degree or a certificate from a CC as NOT proof of being able to handle a skilled job, only as proof of finally having truly completed a basic high school education. It's a domino problem.

[Luanne]

 

I'm sorry, but I have a difficult time comprehending how some people on here don't want to see certain people educated. I'm guessing (just my opinion) that some think they are better than others because they have money (most likely always have had) so they think the poor should be kept poor so they can feel superior to them. I think it is sad that anyone would have this view

 

I'm not sure who said or implied this in this thread. Will you please quote them?

 

I can't... because if I do I will be banned for personally attacking someone. 

[TranquilMind]

Yes, I have commented before, and it's common practice here.

 

This leaves a whole bunch of kids working 20-30 hours per week at minimum wage all crammed together in an apartment trying to make ends meet while attending the crappiest excuse of a "college" - a community college here that is mind bogglingly awful but makes a lot of future employment promises that are completely untrue and none of the local employers want their graduates - taking out loans because their parents won't fill out FASFA but they can't be legally declared independent (it's very, very hard to do for 18 and 19 year olds that aren't married because the government and higher education have determined to get into the parental wallet and punish those kids who do not have access) so they qualify for zero aid. They take out a lot of loan money, find out that their diploma, certificate, license, or AA is not worth the paper it's printed on and now after working four years to get two years worth of credit are still working the same dead end minimum wage jobs but have student loans on top of their already barely subsistence level existence.

 

It.is.nuts.

 

In my area, the problem is that the parents don't want to wake up. They all went to work at 17/18 years of age for one of the big three automakers or their subsidiaries and support industries, made excellent money from a young age, invested in pensions, and retired about the time their own kids are graduating usually having paid off the house early. They work a side job for extra cash and really, this is the life they dream of for their children. They think if they work long enough in crappy jobs that at some point some factory some place is going to have an opening and their kid will get that magic ticket. Meanwhile they haven't bothered to educate themselves or REFUSE to educate themselves about the fact that those jobs are leaving in droves and the manufacturing jobs left are high tech and require additional training from trade schools and community colleges, and have much more strict hiring practices than ever before. For every one job that opens up, there are 200-300 applicants in our area (sometimes more) and almost none of them are qualified which means many times someone is imported from a different part of the country that holds the specialty license or training necessary.

 

These parents were independent at 18, bought houses in their very early 20's, drove nice cars from the outset, etc. They think their kids should somehow just magically be able to manage this too. Reality has an ugly message that they do not want to hear, and the resentment at the thought that they might have to help their child get a leg up even if it's just allowing them to continue to live at home a few years while they receive their post-high school training is offensive.

 

My problem with the program is that not all community colleges are created equal. The one down the road from us should not get a single penny of taxpayer dollars. Period. What it gets now is a travesty. But, I'm all for expanding help for students at worthy community colleges. Now that said, I'm also all for expanding federal and state help to students at four year universities. There are degrees that are not easy to achieve through transfer because the cycle of classes is strict, many cc's can't teach all of the necessary prerequisites, etc. It's not as though kids in engineering at Michigan Tech and Virginia Tech do not need help! Many of them are going to be drowning in debt. But, that's also an issue of tuition, room, and board so far outpacing wages that it's staggering! Aid has not been increased in so long that it's NUTS!!! The only thing that has increased is the predatory lending practices of institutions like Sallie Mae, and the dishonesty of financial aid departments that tout their product and manipulate students with little experience into taking out mega loans while lying about what the stats say about future employment opportunities in their field AND starting wages.

 

Case in point, one of the schools that ds was looking at touts during their financial aid seminar that their graduates starting wages are an average of X. Not true...college factual, college data, and several other websites that collect this information show consistently that the average starting wage of their graduates is $20,000.00 per year less than they claim. LIES! And that $20,000 less is a huge issue when you have student loan payments of $600.00 a month.

 

It's a buyer beware situation out there and the young need guidance.

 

So, I am all for expanding assistance for both college and trades in the form of grants and linked to reasonable academic progress in order to renew it each semester. BUT, it needs to be spent at institutions that are doing their job and not just raking in money while handing out snake oil. I am not certain how the dregs can be separated out, but this needs to happen both for the sake of the student and the taxpayer

 

 

 

I believe a lot of parents have actually realized that the economy has been destroyed from the inside and that the large quantities of decent jobs that were available to them are no longer there for their children.  I know we have had this conversation many times in this home. 

 

It is their duty to teach their children that they are going to have to make another way for themselves, unless they wish to be enslaved into their elderly years by debt.  I read last week in the AARP magazine (so, sue me...it comes in the mail! ;)) that a 77 year old Grandma foolishly co-signed loans for her Granddaughter.  Said granddaughter did her best and did graduate, but was unable to find anything but an entry level Starbucks-type job.  So guess who the sharks went after?  Grandma says she can never retire now, as this mountain of debt will not be repaid for decades. She is 77 freaking years old!   Maybe granddaughter can pull it out, but she is way behind even now. Someone is currently paying, so they will simply hound Grandma to her death, and then switch the focus to granddaughter. 

 

Co-signing is foolish.  I'd rather see a kid go through a year of college, work a couple of years to save, if possible, and repeat, than to get in lifelong, nondischargeable student loan debt.   Wait tables at some expensive restaurant (if you can get it - old timers are leaving as quickly today because they can't find anything else, but those people make boatloads of money on a good day).   Or work somewhere that pays for some credits. Or go overseas.  Or try hard to earn a free or reduced ride with high stats (what I'm encouraging for one right now in the pipeline). 

 

I agree.  The young need guidance, guidance to not submit to the "master" of debt, in my view.  And they need information on the least risky, most intelligent way to accomplish their goals.    It is true that many community colleges are a waste of time, but there are some better ones. They have to do the research, which is pretty darn easy today, with the internet.  There are also vast numbers of high schools offering college credits today...students need to take advantage of those.  My niece just graduated with an A.A. as well as a high school diploma, and there were many of them. 

 

What will really happen is that the motivated will always make it work somehow, and those who are unmotivated will not, regardless of educational levels.  Look at Ben Carson's Mom....that woman was motivated to make sure her sons didn't stay in the ghetto, so she did some "outside the box" things with her boys, with an excellent payoff in terms of educational attainment. 

 

I do agree that college costs are absolutely RIDICULOUS today.  Why does a single room cost $15,000-20,000 a  year or more?  That's just stupid.  Why do they have to have resort facilities?  We didn't.  Goodness. 

[TranquilMind]

And let me just say that any program like this is a band-aid on a big gash. Adding two years at the adult end when the foundation is poor for many students may help them do some better, but not significantly better because once employed, one needs to remain employed and part of that has to do with the foundation. So, we've got to fix K-8 in particular because I know an awful lot of high school teachers that want to challenge the kids and do true high school level work, but can't because when half the class shows up in algebra 1 and can't do arithmetic much less any mathematics whatsoever, or biology with ZERO foundational science knowledge, and reading comprehension skills in the gutter, they can't magically make them ready for trade school or college in four years. That has to be fixed and until it is, we are just slapping gauze on wounds and trying to put enough pressure on it to keep the hemorrhage under control.

 

The sheer number of 90 level (ie. middle and high school work) course that CC's have to offer in order to finally get students ready for 100 level classes is staggering. I know of three local colleges that have to offer three reading comprehension classes, three remedial math classes, and two remedial English on top of two 90 level writing courses in order to get some students up to freshman. That's a lot of money and effort just to finally be ready for an introductory course! 24 credits...nearly an entire year of college.

 

So we need to fix the foundation and that must, must, must be a part of the equation and a lot of what the feds propose in that regard is NOT helpful (I'd be all for repealing No Child Left Behind for starters). We may have to slap some band-aids for now in order to help adults, but this is the tip of the iceberg if we don't do something about the abysmal state of K-8 education in the U.S.

 

And of course all of the above leads to some employers looking at a degree or a certificate from a CC as NOT proof of being able to handle a skilled job, only as proof of finally having truly completed a basic high school education. It's a domino problem.

Yes, it is a mess.  I know I certainly wonder what the local.  major failing school system is doing with the $12,000 + per student per year.    It can barely graduate 30-50%, on a good year. 

[TranquilMind]

I'm all for it. Lots of kids already get publicly funded CC in high school.

 

College is becoming unattainable even for kids in higher socioeconomic classes, I hope the bubble bursts soon.

 

Then again, I had free lunch, and so did my 3 siblings. Only 2 of us went to college because of the costs.

Exactly. 

 

I don't care who you are, dropping $30,000-$60,000 per year is just not doable for very many people.  And it is no easier to pay for, if you try to borrow it! 

[TranquilMind]

No. Just as a random example, my eldest starts back to school on Monday. We bought her books on Friday. Friday night she received an email that her anthropology professor had changed, and she would need different books.

Wow, that's just unbelievably frustrating and annoying! 

[TranquilMind]

Well, MA does not have free tuition, but it does offer it (at the State Uni, not CC level) to anyone who scores well enough on the MCAS (in future maybe  this will switch to the new CC-aligned exams).  Anyway, the cost for the flagship state Uni is a bit over $24,000.  Tuition is only $1,714.  Fees are over $11,000, and room and board another $11,000.  So, yeah, so great that we get "free tuition" (both my kids who took the MCAS so far would qualify).  Lowers the actual cost less than 8%.  Whoop-dee-flippin'-doo.

 

I mean, what the heck is "tuition" supposed to pay for if the "curriculum fee" is over 10x more than "tuition"?  Almost $10K for curriculum?  But I'm already paying "tuition" for the courses, and I have to pay for my own books as well, so what is that $10K for???  :confused1:

 

 

ETA: For jollies, I just looked up the payment structure at our CC.  Some of you are paying so little per credit-hour at the CC I can't believe it!  Well, it turns out tuition at our CC is indeed pretty darn cheap at $24/credit.  But the fees per credit are $157, which adds up to $181 per credit, or $543 per typical 3-credit course.  :glare:

That is just insanely and intentionally deceptive.

 

Reminds me of a ticket to Europe I bought on one airline that was advertised as "$700" (more or less).  The cost, after fees, was $1340 - no deal there! 

 

Your Universities should just say UP FRONT that it costs $24,000 per year to go there.    Big deal...free $1,714! 

[Hikin' Mama]

I can't... because if I do I will be banned for personally attacking someone.

Fair enough.

 

I have really enjoyed this thread and hearing everyone's thoughts. 😄

[TranquilMind]

Thank you!!!!!!

 

I divorced last year after an 18-month separation. I am currently full-time at University and part-time at CC (because it is down the street from my house).

 

The current cost of school is OUTRAGEOUS!!!  I *SO* wish I had finished school when I was a young adult, rather than now as a middle-adult.

 

My CC account runs me about $1000 a term, part-time. Full-time it would cost about $3000 a term (including books). 

 

University costs me $5500 a term (Fall/Spring) plus books and commute. 

 

Pell is only worth $5645 a year.

I can only take $5500 a year ($3500 first year and $4500 second year) in subsidized loans.

I have applied for HUNDREDS of scholarships and grants over the past 2 years. = $0

I could NOT get an unsubsidized loan or a private loan without a co-signer. My CS and alimony monies are not considered income eligible for 2 years (in another 18 months from today).

 

The numbers just don't work. It isn't the educational world we lived in 10-20 years ago. Just because "you did it" when you were a kid does not mean it is possible for everyone now. 

 

Education is becoming a benefit for the very high and very low and very lucky.

 

Kris

I just looked up a local branch of a state university.  $263 per credit hour!   

 

The closest community college is $500 per hour!  What a scam.  Some high schools have deals there where the classes can be taken for a couple of hundred or less though (total, not credit hour). 

[MomtoCandJ]

At Kirtland (in MI) my nursing program will cost me over $22,000. It's a community college but that doesn't include my gas or daycare for dd2

[FaithManor]

University of Michigan is $465 ish for full time per credit hour without fees and $881.00 part time. The decent cc is $268.00 per hour for full time. They do a good job and their credits usually transfer well. This $268.00 does include fees.

So for a 15 credit hour semester which is a standard full time load, that is $4020 per semester without books. I would imagine that with books for a year $9000 plus a little would be normal. That is in district. For students commuting from outside the county it is $325 and change per credit hour.

The median income in my county is barely north of $30,000 per annum and students are generally getting aid to the tune of about $3000-4000.00. So it still means loans of about $5000-6000 per year plus commuting costs. The drop in gas price has been a blessing to these students because back when fuel was over $3.00 a gallon, even with a car with decent mpg, $30.00 a day to commute was common since it is almost all side roads getting there. At these rates, if the student had merit aid and does not take their car to campus, U of MI is within reach for the same loan cost.

There is something wrong with that picture when the system designed to give people a leg up who can't manage the traditional and more expensive route is hardly any savings.

Add to it the cost of those 24 credits of remedial courses that do not count towards a degree certificate, or license at that price and ouch! The n number one priority for future generations of students is to fix that base foundation so they are ready for freshman coursework.

[Lolly]

If this happens and it has the effect of encouraging more students to choose CC when they would otherwise have gone straight to university, is this a good or bad thing?  Will it result in a more or less educated society?

I have been surprised, in TN it doesn't seem to be making much of a difference on who attends CC or goes straight to 4 year. Those who choose 4 year are still going straight there. I'm sure there will be some influenced to start at CC, but it is not nearly as much as I would have predicted! For the most part (among those I know), free 2 years seems to be allowing those who would not be able to afford CC to attend or making it free for those who would have gone that route anyway. So far. 

 

In other news, ds has his first mentor meeting time now. Everyone has to show up before 5 to sign in for meetings that start at 5:30. If you do not show up or do not stay for the entire time, you lose your free tuition. I am hoping it is a single group meeting, not one on one. I am hoping there are not too many kids per mentor. What about those kids who have work who cannot get off or make it. It seems like it is be there or nothing no matter what the circumstances. I am always a bit wary of things like this though. 

[Lolly]

How about making the first 1 or 2 years of state university free instead, or in addition?

Too expensive. The cost difference between a semester of CC and 4 year is just too great.

[Mrs Mungo]

Too expensive. The cost difference between a semester of CC and 4 year is just too great.

 

Agreed. In state tuition for cc here is around $115/credit hour (with fees aside from around $30 in fees that are added only to the first credit). My dd is taking 18 hours, so her tuition and books for the semester were about $2500 total. Judging from the thread, it seems that cost is pretty middle of the road as far as community colleges go.

 

The larger of the state universities charges $254 per credit hour, then adds on $500-1000+ in fees per semester, mostly depending upon your major. So, it would have cost her around $5600 for the semester, more than twice as much. 

[Murphy101]

My post said nothing about wealthy families handing cash over sans obligations. I did mention how many wealthy families consider their 18 year old children to be investments in the family's economic success. I also mentioned examples of such investment, such as preparation and support of ongoing education and professional development, which I would hope would at least infer responsibilities on part of the child. The most highly successful people in society rarely get there on their own, without the involvement and patronage of other interested parties (like their parents, for example). They also rarely get there without their own ambition and effort.

 

Of course, there are the cliched "wild child" types, who tend to cause much drama in their families and a lot of annoyance, because they don't take their responsibilities seriously, and either drink or spend their money away. Also, there is the x factor of genetic preponderance to play into the equation of addiction. But, it seems to me that, overall, substance abuse is more strongly correlated to poverty, not affluence.

 

In any case, I find I'm personally more inclined to help my son get ahead as much as I can, without incurring the debt I did in my early 20's. To that end, I have told him as long as he is pursuing his studies and/or professional development, we actually expect him to live with us. Dangerous or destructive behavior is a different animal. We would still be there to support him getting therapy and whatever help necessary, but I'm not talking here about financially supporting substance abuse or something of that nature.

Actually drug convictions are more correlated to poverty. Drug use doesn't seem to have diddly to do with income alone.

 

That is probably another topic though.

 

:)

[G5052]

Add to it the cost of those 24 credits of remedial courses that do not count towards a degree certificate, or license at that price and ouch! The n number one priority for future generations of students is to fix that base foundation so they are ready for freshman coursework.

 

Yes, this was an issue raised on my faculty email list over the weekend.  

 

If the goal is a 2-year transfer degree, does that mean that they're only paying for transfer classes?  The remedial English and math classes are not transfer classes, and some types of financial aid actually don't pay for them now as it is.  So if this federal program flies, will those who need remedial classes have to pay for them or will they be covered?

 

The last statistic I saw said that about 55% of the graduates of local public high schools had to take at least one remedial class at the local community college last semester.  That's down from 2013-2014.

[Lolly]

Yes, this was an issue raised on my faculty email list over the weekend.  

 

If the goal is a 2-year transfer degree, does that mean that they're only paying for transfer classes?  The remedial English and math classes are not transfer classes, and some types of financial aid actually don't pay for them now as it is.  So if this federal program flies, will those who need remedial classes have to pay for them or will they be covered?

 

The last statistic I saw said that about 55% of the graduates of local public high schools had to take at least one remedial class at the local community college last semester.  That's down from 2013-2014.

Since they seem to be looking to TN for some guidelines...the new program here does cover remedial classes. The catch is that TWO years of classes are covered. Pretty sure they mean two fall/spring semesters there. If you are taking up one semester with remedial stuff, that will leave you with one semester you have to pay for. Seems pretty fair to me. There have to be limits.

[Aelwydd]

And let me just say that any program like this is a band-aid on a big gash. Adding two years at the adult end when the foundation is poor for many students may help them do some better, but not significantly better because once employed, one needs to remain employed and part of that has to do with the foundation...

 

Faith, I know you've shared some of this before, but thanks for talking about this again.  I absolutely 100% agree. It seems like guaranteeing "free" CC to everyone would be a great idea on paper, but for many young adults, it's just the piss-poor icing on top of the substandard k-12 cake.  I do support publicly-funded, high quality education that is available to everyone.  The problem with this proposal is it is adding on top of an already unevenly distributed load. 

 

That's not to say I wouldn't support "free" CC.  It is to say, I think that such a move is totally insufficient to address the huge deficit of cultivated and critical thinkers graduating from secondary schools to begin with.  I think the reason why this option is being presented here and now, is as I stated in my S/O thread, probably due at least some some panic about the impending need for a population that is broadly trained and educated for a high-tech world.

 

Doesn't help those young adults now that are truly up a creek. :(

[TechWife]

Now see, I'm going to come across like a liberal here, but realistically, the "pay only if you fail" thing is backwards.  If you fail, you are going to end up in a minimum wage job with no means of paying, default / go bankrupt, and have sucky credit for the foreseeable future.  If you graduate, you're going to make more money and be able to pay, and if you're reasonable, you'll see that payment as a reasonable investment in your future.

 

One of the things that need reform is the way institutions of "learning" woo folks who really aren't qualified, help them get loans, take the loan money, and are out of the picture once the loans come due and the individual can't pay.  Making tuition "free" to the student removes the issue of unserviceable loans at that level.  However, the issue of whether the individual should actually be spending his time in school is not addressed.  Let's be honest, CC is *not* such a good investment for some individuals.  How is that going to be handled?

 

You make some really good points here. Perhaps the key will be making sure people are realistic in what they can do. Here, the community colleges have the technical degrees/certifications as well as the associates degrees. Maybe the program needs to be worded in such a way that either a technical degree/certification will be covered as well as an associates degree. That would make job training available to those who aren't pursuing an associates degree. 

[TechWife]

The educational requirements in the rest of the Industrialized world already are higher, WE are behind.  

 

This is true at the elementary and secondary levels. However, our university systems are outstanding. The problem is that our K-12 schools are not preparing students for our own university system. 

[G5052]

Since they seem to be looking to TN for some guidelines...the new program here does cover remedial classes. The catch is that TWO years of classes are covered. Pretty sure they mean two fall/spring semesters there. If you are taking up one semester with remedial stuff, that will leave you with one semester you have to pay for. Seems pretty fair to me. There have to be limits.

 

That's good to know.  I can't imagine doing this and not paying for remedial classes, but the yes, the two-year limit will be an issue.  

 

I'm guessing that if a two-year limit is set that the number of full-time students will also increase!  Right now around half of the students at the local community college are part-time (less than 12 hours).

 

They will also have to be pretty focused.  You can't start out STEM and graduate with a pre-business degree in two years without overloading at some point.

[G5052]

 

Doesn't help those young adults now that are truly up a creek. :(

 

Yup.  That's what has kept me homeschooling.  I see what the public school produces, and it scares me.  Even "honors graduates" can't read detailed technical material and write an analytical paragraph.

[Laura Corin]

I'm not an expert on this at all, but it's my understanding that the entrance process in countries that have free advanced education is very different than ours.  I know my friend from Germany had to test into her major before even beginning college, and that was all she took.  She couldn't switch majors around, take classes just to see if they were interesting to her etc.  Granted that was over 10 years ago and things may have changed.   

 

When I taught at Paris University, as far as I remember you just had to pass your high school certificate (Bac.) and then you had automatic entrance to most universities.  My classes were very oversubscribed because there was essentially no filter.  I think that university was free or very cheap at that time.

 

The UK is different: yes, in most cases, you have to pass exams (similar to APs) in the subject that you want to study at university.  In England and Wales it is usually difficult to change major; in Scotland, there is more flexibility.  University fees vary, but the most you can pay in England and Wales at the moment is £9,000 per annum (USD 13,500) even for the most prestigious universities.  Interest-free or low interest loans are available to most and bursaries (like scholarships) to those on low incomes.  University is free in Scotland for Scottish residents.

 

ETA: it is entirely possible to restart your education in the UK if you miss out at school - there are access courses that allow mature students (25 and over) to enter university without formal qualifications; there are also colleges similar to community colleges in the US that allow you to take pre-university qualifications at any age; also night school and distance learning.

 

L

[FaithManor]

Faith, I know you've shared some of this before, but thanks for talking about this again.  I absolutely 100% agree. It seems like guaranteeing "free" CC to everyone would be a great idea on paper, but for many young adults, it's just the piss-poor icing on top of the substandard k-12 cake.  I do support publicly-funded, high quality education that is available to everyone.  The problem with this proposal is it is adding on top of an already unevenly distributed load. 

 

That's not to say I wouldn't support "free" CC.  It is to say, I think that such a move is totally insufficient to address the huge deficit of cultivated and critical thinkers graduating from secondary schools to begin with.  I think the reason why this option is being presented here and now, is as I stated in my S/O thread, probably due at least some some panic about the impending need for a population that is broadly trained and educated for a high-tech world.

 

Doesn't help those young adults now that are truly up a creek. :(

Exactly this.

 

My dad gives a short logic and math exam to any potential new hires because he has wasted so much money and time over the years training people who aren't going to make it. There is what I would call basic word problems that involve d=rt, area of square, rectangle, triangle, and circle, solving a simple linear system of two equations, figuring simple interest, etc. and some very standard not particularly difficult logic questions such as here are four shapes that create patterns, which one comes next...all of them having been rotating clockwise 90 degrees each time so should not be hard to see what comes next. Word associations - hand is to glove as blank is to sock, and following three part instructions which means listening carefully to a set of instructions that again is not complicated and then doing it. The key being listening and focusing.

 

Most of the local high school graduates cannot pass the test, and a high percentage of potential hires with one or more semesters from the REALLY CRAPPY cc in town cannot either. He's also had two with AA's in business from that same school fail as well.

 

So, we have got to do something about the base. This plug and chug, the bubble test is everything, don't think a thought just regurgitate what you are told, pass everyone along, approach is not working. The foundation is not there, and four years of spinning wheels in high school isn't helping.

 

Of course the kids that are the upper performing students are headed to four year universities and not sticking around the area thus not applying for jobs in his business. However, the number of students performing at that level dwindles each year. The number of what we would have called "average" students back in my day has shrunk considerably. There seems to exist remedial high school, and top 10% of the nation high school programs and not much of any substance in between. Remedial high school doesn't actually seem to be helping the underperforming students all that much either. Sigh...

 

We need more than a Band-Aid. Yes, we should do what we can in the moment as a stop gap measure to try to help whomever we can, but the reality is the future educationally is quite bleak for the bulk of students.

[FaithManor]

And, I 'd like to point out that there are socioeconomic fixes and generational family problems that also need to be addressed because we could get the best educational system in the world implemented and still have a LARGE number of children fall through the cracks through no fault of the school district. Take Highland Park school district in Wayne County, MI. The average kindergartener arrives at school with a working vocabulary of 25 words. Think about that. 25 words...that means that in speech development they are significantly delayed. This is not usually due to LD's per se, but to lack of speech interaction with older children and adults...an awful lot of time left unattended or at least without someone interacting with the child. What is a K teacher supposed to do?  In order to build vocabulary, the teachers there begin with BOARD BOOKS!

 

So, we need to absorb that. We need to think about what generational poverty, violence, malnutrition, etc. does to children because the best solutions will be the ones that fix the foundation as early as possible, not slap a butterfly bandage on it later.