"Oregon's not going to get to 40-40-20 with just some more fold-out couches"

40-40-20 as a political slogan for more funding versus educational change

Oregonian columnist David Sarasohn is beginning to see Oregon’s 40-40-20 educational goals for what they are. He writes in his column “Oregon sets a higher ed goal of 40-40-20:  Seriously?” (here):

.... Bierwirth's bewilderment comes to mind as the state sets out another lofty goal, 40-40-20 -- having 40 percent of the state's adults with four-year college degrees, 40 percent with two-year degrees or the equivalent, and the remaining 20 percent with high school degrees. It would be an impressive advance, since the four-year number is now closer to 30 percent and the two-year degree number way lower than that. The state is so proud of the goal that the last legislature made it law.

Just like the 1991 school reform bill.

Oregon's not going to get to 40-40-20 by just getting people to sign compacts saying they'll do better. It will take considerable new money for both university resources and financial aid support, a sharp U-turn from the direction the state has followed for the last 20 years.

To get to 40-40-20, which state policy declares is supposed to be within sight by 2025, state higher education chancellor George Pernsteiner estimates Oregon University System enrollment would have to rise from about 100,000 to about 160,000. Portland State President Wim Wievel says, "If you assume that 40-40-20 actually happens, and PSU continues its current role," Portland State enrollment needs to eventually rise from 30,000 to 52,000.

"That is going to take investment," says Pernsteiner, "not just by the universities, not just by the students, but also by the state."

This doesn't mean massively expanding all the campuses; some of the expansion would be online, some of it at off-campus centers. But Oregon's not going to get to 40-40-20 with just some more fold-out couches.....

Sarasohn, I’m sure, would like to see substantially more state funding for higher ed. I’m not ready for that. First, the system needs to make some important changes. I previously blogged (here):

Whenever I read of our educational “40-40-20” goals, I think watch your wallet and checkbook, because that is the political slogan of the status-quo educational establishment in Oregon that wants more public funding. They are trying to sell the idea that increasing the number of Oregonians who meet their various graduation requirements would give us a more competitive, vibrant economy. It is largely a hoax, a fantasy they are pushing at us, the public, to get our money and grow their enterprises.

Why do I think this? Because, if they were serious about our economic future, they would all support more Mandarin and high school study abroad programs. Few do. And, if they were serious about a cost-efficient educational system, they would all be pushing for a more organized and extensive online education system. Again, only a few do. So, they really have a different agenda than a cost-effective educational systems teaching the skills needed for our economic future. They just want our money for an expanded status-quo system.

Comments

[Mitch Weinzetl]

Let’s admit it; both the secondary education and the higher education the educational systems are broken. They are broken in different ways, but they are definitely broken. By most standards, the secondary education system is not producing positive results on a consistent basis. Nobody seems to like or want “No Child Left Behind” (and I am not advocating for this) but at the same time, nobody wants to address the real dysfunction that is occurring at the secondary educational level. Secondary education relies on public funding, and as a result, the public should have some say in whether the education system should be allowed to continue operating in a status-quo fashion. Despite this, educators are quick to discourage any such interference from the public, suggesting that the public really does not understand the system. They are right – we do not.

From a business perspective, nearly every institution of higher education is in the red – all the time. If education was operated strictly as a business, and with no subsidy, most would have to close their doors. Yet, these same institutions continue to seek public funding to offset the costs of tuition and operations. Here’s a suggestion; cut costs, operate efficiently, and compete for tuition dollars in the same way that business competes for their earnings. Those in charge say that we (the public) do not understand. Again, they are right.

In both cases, the systems appear to be broken and in need of reform. It would seem however, that unless or until things get really bad, nobody within either of these systems will step up and take on a leadership role to drive the positive change that is needed. If things remain unchecked, it is likely that they will continue to deteriorate. Say “no” to “status-quo.” If these educational systems do not want external forces to dictate what they should do differently in order to remain viable, then they had better figure this out for themselves, and soon. If not, they may find that there is no subsidy, and they may find themselves in line for a new profession.

[Mark]

I'm not convinced our systems are 'broken.' They may not produce what any one of us may want, but that doesn't mean 'broken.' Simply means they don't produce what that individual may say they want.

A phrase that keeps popping back up for me: we reap what we sow, or our systems produce what they produce, and we've 'designed' them that way.

We have a system that, more or less, gets most students thru, and into jobs. Yes, there is a recession, but again, most (more than 50%) people have jobs. Most people graduate from high school, most people have a shot at getting some further education (community college, vocational training, university, adult ed, etc.)

We don't really want 'everyone' to 'succeed' in the same way. Not really -- someone has to plow the ground, sow the seeds, water, weed, harvest, transport to market, sort, display, ring up sales, bag, etc. -- those are farm field workers, teamsters, grocery clerks, cashiers, baggers, etc. We don't need them to get any specific kind of education, beyond 'vocational' training for the truck drivers. Every other one of those doesn't need any particular kind of education, and certainly not even a high school certificate.

And we certainly don't want to pay a 'living wage' to most of them, because that would make our food, etc. much more expensive. That's why we 'allow' plenty of low-cost workers without formal authorization (wet-backs) to fill our menial jobs - they help keep labor costs, and consumer prices, down.

Ditto for most of the personnel in our service economy - baristas, dishwashers, waitrons, receptionists, office workers, etc. Our economy has many, many people that don't need any particular kind of education, not even high school. And we get that mix, more or less, with the systems we've been using for quite a few decades.

Seems to serve the needs of most Americans most of the time - even during this recession. Yes, some don't get served as well, but this has always been true, and probably always will be (The poor will always be with us) - any community of large enough scale has a hierarchy of some sort, and to be Garrison's Lake Wobegon 'above average,' someone else, perforce, must be below average. We actually want it that way, and we get it.

Plenty of surveys establish that Americans generally want to be above average, not average -- in other words, we want some to be below average. And we have 'designed' systems that do just that.

[Mitch Weinzetl]

Mark -

In many respects, I agree with you. At the same time, when I speak of our elementary and secondary education systems being “broken,” what I am referring to is the quality of education students receive, and whether they can meet appropriate benchmarks. It is true to say that some will never reach the higher heights of earnings, but my point is that the education system should not be what stands in their way of this achievement.

As far as higher ed is concerned, I think it is a cashflow issue. By and large, I think students in higher ed get a good education - if they want it, but the financial structure of this system needs work.