Search

This paper discusses the nature of higher education business models and how innovation can (or cannot) occur within those models. It explores the stories of educational institutions as they have tried to launch innovative practices, profiling Bellevue University (Nebraska) and Tiffin University (Ohio), schools that tried to build innovative online programs only to find themselves having run afoul of their accreditor. It also explores the story of Southern New Hampshire University, which successfully built a program, College for America, that is quite similar in certain respects to what Bellevue and Tiffin attempted. The paper discusses the experience of General Assembly, a bootcamp which is not accredited and does not have access to Title IV funding. Together these stories illustrate that accreditation is not necessarily at odds with innovation. Accreditors can block innovation, but they can also facilitate it. Institutions, however, do not always know what their accreditor will allow them to do when they seek to innovate--or what resources they may have to expend to convince an accreditor that an innovation should be permissible. [This paper was first published as a chapter in "Accreditation on the Edge: Challenging Quality Assurance in Higher Education," Johns Hopkins University Press, 2018.]

Colleges and universities are increasingly adopting various software solutions to raise degree completion rates and lower costs (Ferguson, 2012; Vendituoli, 2014; Yanosky, 2014). Student success software, also known as Integrated Planning and Advising Services (IPAS), appears to be in high demand among both students and faculty (Dahlstrom & Bichsel, 2014; Dahlstrom & Brooks, 2014). For example, in a recent survey of students at 185 postsecondary institutions, over 80% of respondents indicated at least moderate interest in using software for guiding course selection, monitoring and improving performance, and identifying relevant resources (Dahlstrom & Bichsel, 2014). This brief provides an overview of student success software and summarizes findings from the nascent body of student outcomes research. Student success software can be generally classified as one of three types: academic planning systems, task engagement systems, and early alert systems (see Table 1). Academic planning software can assist students in creating a degree plan and monitoring degree progress. Task engagement software can provide automated behavioral cues, reminders, and positive reinforcement that help students to complete coursework and comply with administrative deadlines. Early warning systems are designed to collect and utilize student data to alert faculty and staff of students in need of assistance. This brief concludes with the identification of several campus practices that may promote the successful implementation of new software solutions.

A significant challenge in higher education is to narrow the educational attainment gap between academically prepared and unprepared students. To this end, developmental or remedial education is intended to improve the academic skills and knowledge of students who are unprepared for undergraduate coursework, particularly in the areas of mathematics, reading, and writing. Arguably, developmental education may also serve a broader purpose, "to provide the minimum levels of reading, writing, and math skills deemed essential for functional participation in a democratic society and individual sustainability in a free economy" (Bahr, 2008, p. 211). Whether remedial education is effectively achieving these goals, however, has been a matter of considerable debate (Bailey, Jaggars, & Scott-Clayton, 2013; Goudas & Boylan, 2012). On the one hand, only 20% of community college students referred to developmental math and 37% of students referred to developmental reading complete a college-level course in the corresponding subject within three years (Bailey, Jeong, & Cho, 2010). Moreover, despite high rates of enrollment in developmental education, large gaps in achievement and degree completion persist (Ross et al., 2012). In California community colleges, 71% of college-ready students eventually complete a credential or transfer, compared to 41% of academically unprepared students (California Community Colleges, 2013). On the other hand, a simple comparison of success rates may not accurately portray the effectiveness of developmental education since "it is possible that developmental students would have even weaker outcomes if these services were not available" (Bailey, 2009, p. 15). Seemingly low rates of success among developmental students may be at least partly attributable to low levels of academic preparation and motivation (Bettinger, Boatman, & Long, 2013). This brief seeks to portray some of the difficulties that arise in conceptualizing remedial success rates and determining the effectiveness of developmental programs. First, the organization and cost of developmental education in the United States are described. Second, remedial enrollment rates are estimated by institutional type and various demographic attributes. Third, variation in success rates is demonstrated by categorizing students according to referral and enrollment status, course subject, severity of skill deficit, and academic intentions. Fourth, research on the effectiveness of the traditional approach is summarized, focusing on the effects of remedial assignment, enrollment, and completion. Finally, several policy implications are offered.

The report, Yearning to Break Free: Ohio Superintendents Speak Out, describes findings of a survey of 246 Ohio school superintendents about critical issues facing the state's educational system. In particular, the intent of the study was to examine how superintendents might do more with fewer resources. The authors conclude that Ohio districts need increased managerial authority and control over state revenue streams and other funds; transformed collective bargaining rights; and repeal of automatic increases in teacher salaries. Such efforts, they argue, are imperative to improve the educational opportunities of all children in the state. But the authors do not provide evidence to support this latter claim. The combined effects of non-representative sampling, loaded or inappropriately worded items, and the conflating of opinion and fact make the report's conclusions problematic. Myriad factors contribute to student achievement, including home and community effects, campus resources (material and non-material), as well as teacher competence which are not examined or considered. And, despite the reported finding that superintendents prefer greater autonomy in personnel and school policies over increased funding, the majority of superintendents also contend that they would see a trade-off of more autonomy with a decrease in funding as undesirable. While the report's main thrust is to justify flat or reduced spending, the report lacks sufficient rigor to make it useful to guide policy or practice. (Contains 9 notes.)

This handbook contains an overview of programs along with a five-year fiscal summary of federal support for federally funded educational programs administered by the Ohio Department of Education. Programs include adult basic education, the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act, Elementary and Secondary Education Act, federal surplus property, federally affected areas, major disaster area assistance, National Defense Education Act, school food services, special education, veterans' educational assistance, and vocational education. Each program is described in terms of authority, purposes, participating Ohio agencies, application procedures, state-level responsibilities, local-level responsibilities, matching requirements, federal support for fiscal 1975, grant award for fiscal 1976, notes, legislative changes, contact names, and local implications. (AM)

These materials are intended to accompany a videotape, that incorporates stories from 15 women who lived in the coal producing towns of Athens County, Ohio during the first half of the 20th century. Discussion questions, a list of resource volunteers, and background information on mining and Athens County coal towns are included. (DB)