Q&A: Michelle Cooper, President, Institute for Higher Education Policy
Amy Elliott Bragg |
Monday, November 19, 2012
How, and why, should talent leaders build a more equitable approach to college completion?
Who better to ask than Michelle Cooper? As president of the Institute for Higher Education Policy, Michelle Cooper heads up one of the world's premier research and policy centers. She's a noted leader in building strategies and advocating for policies that help low-income, minority, first-generation, non-traditional and other historically underserved student populations succeed in postsecondary education. She's also a member of the advisory board for the Talent Dividend Prize.
She sees our picture of the twenty-first century American college student beginning to change -- and believes that if we ignore this change, we are not doing our jobs.
Talent Dividend Network: What is the "state of the union" on college success among first-generation, low-income, and minority students, compared to where we were in the past, or where we should be?
Michelle Cooper: Over the past several decades, we have certainly seen improvement in college success for these students. The challenge that lies before us is that the improvement hasn't been at an equitable rate -- some of these populations are still lagging behind. As we move forward, we want to see greater improvement in terms of the outcomes.
It should also be noted that a growing population is students who are non-traditional -- adults who may work full time, who may have a GED instead of a high school diploma. We need to make sure that these students also have an equal chance of succeeding in college.
TDN: Nationally, what should our priorities be in terms of policy to ensure that we are supporting these historically underserved students to succeed in college?
MC: I think we need a three-pronged policy approach.
The first prong is academic preparation -- making sure that students are prepared when they get to college, and when they get to college, that we continue to support them academically, which includes social support.
The second prong is costs, costs and more costs. This is probably one of the largest factors facing today's students. It's going to be really important to maintain a focus on need-based financial aid. On the institutional side, we need to look at innovative ways to educate students for less, and to make sure that academics and finances go hand in hand -- that students are given what they need to succeed and getting what they need in terms of enrichment and academic tools.
The third is workforce development. Many institutions have been linking workforce skills to the classroom. We're seeing a movement toward greater accountability on the part of our institutions of higher education, making sure that students are graduating with a usable credential. We want to make sure they not only get a job that pays well, but that they're able to pay back their student loans.
TDN: You mentioned "costs, costs, and more costs." How much college costs is a huge part of our national conversation about higher education. What role does affordability play in terms of equity? Studies are starting to show that minority students are disproportionately burdened by student loan debt, for example.
MC: Whenever I talk about afforadbility in today's context, I have to remind people of something that's very important: When we look at colleges for decades, for centuries, for all time: It's always been unaffordable to the masses. College didn't just recently become unaffordable.
What has happened that is different from the past 50 years is that the programs and policies that we put into place to make college more affordable are being pulled back. After the war we created the GI Bill; that helped a generation of people become more educated, which led to their families becoming more educated. Then we created the Pell Grant program, which originally covered 70% of college costs, plus policies at the state level that provided subsidies to institutions as well as grant aid to students in that state. What we're now seeing is that those policies that historically helped underserved populations get a better shot at higher ed and at their future -- those policies are being retrenched. We have less state subsidies and fewer states providing need-based grant aid. The purchasing power of the Pell grant is diminishing. And it's all happening at the same time. On top of that, we ended up in a recession. It's beyond a perfect storm -- and it's hurting not only the lowest-income families but a lot of other families, too.
We're figuring out ways to understand institutional costs and match that with how much someone really needs to pay for that education, and how much of that should be in the form of student debt. I don't think student loan debt is a bad thing, but we want people to have a manageble level of debt. We don't want students to feel they can't pursue certain studies -- for instance, students who don't want to become school teachers because they are worried they won't be able to pay back their loans. We want to make sure that there is financial aid available, that the promise of need-based aid is a very real promise, and that the value of aid doesn't diminish relative to the cost of education.
TDN: I have to ask about the recent election, from which a narrative has emerged -- that young people, minorities, and women were the deciders here, and that this election reflects a huge shift in our what our country looks like, and who we are. What does this shift mean for higher education, and the way we approach college completion?
MC: I've been thinking about this a lot. I'm a policy junkie. I've been watching all of the feedback about why Obama won, or why Romney didn't win, and I watched more election coverage than I really want to admit.
What the Romney camp didn't do is pay enough attention to who today's voters were. They were paying attention to who the voters were 20 years ago, and how to win an election 20 years ago. And I think that higher ed is facing the exact same challenge. If our colleges and universities don't recognize that our students represent this population, we are wasting our time.
We can't do the same thing we did 20 years ago. That's not what our student body looks like today. If we don't change the way we think and operate and talk about today's students, we are going to miss the mark. We won't win this race.
It has never been more important that college completion for ALL groups be increased. These are the students of today -- this is the 21st century student. We have to pay attention to them.
TDN: What advice do you have for cities competing for the Talent Dividend Prize, especially those that want to engage low-income and minority students in their communities?
MC: The main advice I would give is to focus on partnerships. Look at how to bring together and coordinate the business community, social services, workforce development -- those local partnerships can lead to stronger efforts and greater outcomes, and more conversations with constituents about what matters.
Cities in metropolitan areas where degree attainment has been low, due to poverty or a decline in jobs, should make sure they are looking at partnerships that will link work-based skills to the classroom. Figure out how to get people back to work and bring some stability to those communities. In cities with higher attainment levels, the strategy should really be around sustaining that momentum by partnering not only with higher ed institutions but with local high schools and elementary schools to make sure there is always a strong pipeline for students, especially those from disadvantaged neighborhoods within those communities.
Amy Elliott Bragg is the editor of Talent Dividend Network.