An Honor Roll, Not a Watch List, for Colleges

Members of Congress on the House committee on education have come up with an absolute bonehead idea: to publish a “watch list” of schools that have increased tuition at rates higher than inflation.

I am surprised when members of the House speak of reigning in college costs with measures such as this, when they fail to do the same for health care. I am sure the list of hospitals that have raised charges beyond inflation would be longer than the number of bad-behaving colleges.

What will a watch list do? It will not put colleges and universities on-notice because Congress cannot regulate their business practice, but it will embarrass their presidents and possibly force them to submit paperwork or public testimony to explain their pricing decisions. If the federal government publicizes such a list, it may also scare prospective applicants away from institutions that need students, even if the school is in a position to offer considerable financial aid.

This is one scenario where it is better for Congress to butt-out. State governments are already taking their own steps to regulate tuition increases for the institutions that are under their control. The voters, including parents and students, have a stronger voice with their state government than they do with the federal government. Placing state-supported schools on a watch list would serve to show that some states have less commitment to higher education than other states. I doubt that any member of Congress wants to embarrass the governor of the state they reside.

Private institutions, like public ones, can prepare parents and students by publishing their annual tuition rates (670 have already agreed to do this, thanks to the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities) and they can make their own decisions. This is one time that parents do not need Congress to be a nanny for them.

However, Congress should do the opposite, which is also something it is good at: rewarding the good schools, irrespective of their tuition charges.

Therefore, I have an alternate proposal. Congress should create an “honor roll” of colleges—the colleges that do the best at retaining and graduating their students. In a previous piece, I wrote that approximately 260 four-year colleges have retained 85 percent of their freshman class and graduated 65 percent of their entering first-year classes within six years. There is a good mix of schools to set an example for the rest.

It makes far more sense to recognize the most successful schools and use them to help their peers. While colleges have varied missions, their primary task is to help their students receive degrees. Every college wants to do that better, and every college president already knows that some schools do that better.

The honor roll could be more than a list; it could be an exchange of ideas to help schools get better. Unlike other markets, college presidents do not want their competition to fail; it is an embarrassment to all schools when a single one closes. The success of a college not only depends on its ability to manage student costs, but also the academics, student services and physical plant. The honor roll could also be a motivational tool with college employees; they do not receive the same incentives as private sector workers.

A public honor roll would also be noticed by employers. They want to recruit the best and the brightest; not all of them go to the schools that are considered prestigious today. However, inclusion on the honor roll elevates the prestige of many institutions for a very positive accomplishment. The honor can only help their students in their job search; it certainly cannot hurt.

Even better, Congress might not need to fund the honor roll after a year or two. The same corporations that support intercollegiate athletics or aggressively hire entry-level employees can be drawn in to support a national honor society based on student achievement, or maybe one of the ranking sources would like to make the investment. There are no scholarships or stipends attached, only the costs of ceremony and publicity.

Are there negatives? Yes. Schools might be tempted to fudge graduation rates or let students slide in order to be included on a list, but then, the honor roll would be important enough to be worth the effort—including all of the paper work that might otherwise be expended on a watch list.

The Rutgers 1000 is Baaaack!

I have lived in New Jersey practically all of my life.

The Garden State has been in fiscal crisis practically all of my academic life and my working life. I realized this almost thirty years ago, as a student taxpayer; the tuition at Rutgers tripled between from my freshman year to my senior year.

All that time the campus looked the same, the complaints about the campus were the same. The complaints about traffic, large lecture classes, deferred maintenance, and so on, were the same.

I know that the extra tuition I paid did not end up in the professor’s pockets; it was used to make up cuts in state aid. Higher education received a lower priority in a recessionary economy.

I did not like it; I paid triple the tuition to get the same education, but I learned to grit my teeth and bear it. So did my classmates; the alternatives were less attractive.

I know that the extra tuition did not support the football program. In the late 70’s, early 80’s, the team had started to play the major football schools. Rutgers had to play the major games on the road, or at Giants Stadium (sorry Jet fans) in the Meadowlands. Rutgers Stadium was too small to host the major powers on campus. It still is, even with twice the seating we had back in our student days.

I understand the economic arguments against stadium expansion—but Rutgers will not be taking the wraps of a new stadium today. Public construction projects have a bid process, a design process, a construction management process. We are talking about a project that will not be completed for two or three years. My major concern is that that Rutgers sticks to the budget; there won’t be any wiggle room for cost overruns.

A better economy, and a better football team, can pay it off. Ardent fans are willing to pay the price for success, now that they have a taste of how it feels to get behind a winning team.

What are the alternatives?

Play at the Meadowlands?

That’s less possible than it was thirty years ago; the current and future stadiums support two National Football League teams. There are only so many days that they will allow college football to tear up their field.

Two third of Rutgers alumni reside in New Jersey. The current Rutgers Stadium is, if nothing else, in a convenient location for alumni to fill the seats—and it brings them back to campus. The Meadowlands is far less convenient.

Rutgers allows 8,000 students to attend games free of charge; this is unique in college football. After I graduated from Rutgers in 1982, I went to graduate school at the University of Illinois, a school that had a Rose Bowl team. I paid $60 a season for my seats—in 1982. That was the same price for Rutgers Young Alumni—in 1995! The game ticket is still a bargain compared to other major college programs; the fans and the athletic department have made that so.

The Sports and Exposition Authority will not allow Rutgers students to attend games in an NFL stadium free of charge; the debt on that facility will not permit it.

Go “down league,” as the Rutgers 1000 has suggested in the past?

The opportunity to play for a national championship puts “meat in the seats.” I sincerely doubt that Rutgers would reverse direction after receiving three consecutive bowl bids and playing to capacity crowds.

Obviously, fans cannot count on the quality of play at season’s eve, but expectations for Rutgers football have risen higher. Optimism breeds enthusiasm, which fills the seats.

Who, at Rutgers, in the 21^st century, would be excited about a “Championship Subdivision” schedule, now that the Scarlet Knights have a chance at something better, something more likely to change the perception of the school for the better?

Alumni who graduated before me might be pleased; they were used to watching the Scarlet Knights battle Princeton. They should be careful what they wish for; Rutgers went 4-6 for the 1960’s against their in-state Ivy rivals. From 1960 through 1975, the last season Princeton won the big game, Rutgers went 6-9-1. From 1960 through 1980, the last year of the rivalry, the Knight’s record against Princeton was 11-9-1

So much for the good old days.

I’m not bothered by the resurrection of the Rutgers 1000; colleges need collegiality and all views on the football stadium debate, pro and con, should be heard. However, I have serious problems with messages like these (below).

Rutgers—a slum campus covered by asphalt and litter; deteriorating classrooms; mounting deferred maintenance costs that reach into the hundreds of millions of dollars.

400 courses have been eliminated. Hundreds of staff positions have been abolished. Key projects have been put on hold. Teams in Olympic and participatory sports have been eliminated.

These comments are no help to Rutgers, or the Rutgers 1000’s cause. They bury the very school they chose, inhibiting students they would like to see on campus from considering the school and, making things more difficult for fundraising and admissions.

Believe it or not, no prospective student or donor is drawn to bad news; they want to be part of something special.

Like an emerging football program.

If the views of the Rutgers 1000 had been in the majority at Rutgers, the university would have spared themselves the investments that they have already made in the football program.

Students and alumni certainly had enough time to voice discontent, long before Greg Schiano settled on the Banks of the Raritan. If anything, dissenting students and alumni could have staged a more significant protest by boycotting the football games, even while the team is winning.

Instead, there are more student fans than there are student seats and a waiting list of 9,000 ready and willing to pay for season tickets.

The Rutgers 1000 leadership might argue that those waiting to buy tickets should reconsider their priorities; that would be consistent with their mission.

Even if that denies thousands of fans access to an activity, in which they want to participate.

Is It Time For Teacher Free Agency?

On September 7, 2007, I read the USA Today editorial debate on how to improve No Child Left Behind. One idea stood out: make sure good teachers stay in schools that need help. This included, in the editorial words: “offering substantial bonuses to teach in struggling schools and exposing the fatter payrolls in better off schools.”

 This is business thinking: pursue the best talent from outside your walls if you need a quick fix, and you do not have the time to develop the talent yourself. It is an example where business think might make sense for public schools in a climate of testing and raised hurdles in the pursuit of 100% proficiency by 2014. Those who teach fourth, eight and 11^th grades, as well as special education are the front-line foot soldiers because of standardized testing and reporting. Success–staying off “the lists”–and failure, remaining on them to the point of sanction, is in the hands of these troops.

It is only fair that these teachers, who have take the most risk and responsibility, be the most rewarded if they succeed by the numbers. Like it or not, they will have the statistics to prove their value, while their peers, who teach other subjects, will not.

This places more significance on the tests, but teachers work in a climate where a single bad mark in language arts or math renders an entire school “in need of improvement.” This is overly harsh, but even if the reporting is toned down, there will still be a demand for ratings; we are a rank-conscious culture, people want to feel that they are on top and deny they’re at the bottom.  

Within New Jersey, my home state, there were122 public school districts in teacher’s contract negotiations as of September 4, the first day of school in most quarters. These teachers work under their current contract, until they get a new one. Previous contracts were signed before teachers and school boards had enough time to know the true effects of No Child Left Behind.

School boards are asking teachers to work longer school days; increased time devoted for language arts and mathematics instruction, as well as test preparation meant less time for other subjects and recess. No doubt, concerned parents do not want to see their children short-changed, so a longer school day, or school year, will come with a price tag. So will increased non-classroom responsibilities, such as meetings or progress reports.

Voters served by districts with no schools in need of improvement would have the continued luxury of turning down school budgets. They would not be forced into paying their teachers more money; good schools will always attract good teachers willing to work on the district’s wage scale. Other districts, and the voters, are not so lucky. Their shared motivation would be to get their schools “off the list” as soon as possible. The best way to do it is to target experienced teachers.

 USA Today, along with other sources, have pointed out that the least experienced teachers in floundering schools receive their first assignments in the poorest performing classes. The less experienced are often the front line; that makes no sense in a climate where a teacher has to post the numbers, and teacher attrition has been a long-standing problem.

I just finished one book, Only Connect, by Rudy Crew, former chancellor of the New York City public school system and current superintendent for Miami-Dade Public Schools; Dr. Crew says that one-third of entry-level teachers leave the profession after three years, and one-half of them are gone after five. I have to believe that forcing more accountability on the shoulders of the least experienced teachers, will speed their departures and do nothing to take a truly troubled school “off the list.”

I would like to raise a thought: create an optional free agency for teachers, somewhat similar to professional athletes, whose value is also judged by statistics. Teachers and professional athletes are not too different: they’re paid professionals tested annually and members of a strong union. They’re also unlikely to make their world, their sport, their life’s work. The major differences between athletes and teachers, besides wages, are that teacher’s unions are local and teachers can earn tenure. Those are also major weaknesses in our status quo.

While professional athletes work under a Standard Player Contract, they also have individual agreements with their teams. Those agreements are performance-based. As an agreement comes close to expiring, the player tests his value. They look for a team willing to pay more for their talents, or better fits their style of play.

How come we do not offer a similar option to high potential teachers? Right now, a teacher’s job is tied to their contract; she cannot leave for a school system that might pay better, or surround her with more resources, unless she wants to forgo tenure and start at the bottom. This works vice-versa; a great teacher in a district that performs fine, but pays poorly, cannot pursue an incentive to take on a challenge.

Testing is unlikely to go away, and neither are teacher’s unions and tenure. However, the system should be tweaked so that the best teachers have more career mobility.

Therefore, here is a proposal for the free agent teacher.

Here is how limited free agency might work: areas in need of improvement or investment, such as science education, fourth grade reading, or special education would be labeled as “strategic need” positions. They could be filled from within the system, or outside. Tenured teachers from the outside carry their tenure into their new job. An untenured teacher with a strong resume receives automatic tenure. They would also receive bonuses. Teachers within the system would earn the bonus and keep their tenure.

This business thinking keeps the best teachers in the profession with no negative impact on tenured teachers who prefer to avoid the risks; they still receive the raise that is stipulated in their union contract. The negative impacts fall on untenured teachers who do not want to fill a “strategic need.” They risk losing their jobs. But are those jobs secure now, if they’re in a poor-performing or financially plagued school? I doubt it.

Blasphemy, some might say; this will turn teachers into job jumpers. But continuity is worthless if a teacher is tied to a contract in a failing school system (and I mean a financially failing one) and prevents them from testing their worth. It is worthless if a good teacher has personal reasons, such as relocation of a spouse’s job, to seek a new position. America has become a nation of job jumpers; private sector employers have pulled back on pensions and benefits. Why should teachers be stuck in bad jobs, when other professionals are not?

I know I will be told that the tenure system is a “third rail” in school politics. But limited free agency is more achievable than some other solutions, such as breaking larger schools into smaller units, paying vouchers to send children to private school—or setting our least experienced teachers in our poorest-performing schools up for failure when they’re put into a grade that’s subject to testing. It is less expensive to move teachers than it is to move kids. There are fewer people to move and the teachers have lesser need for subsidized transportation.

Could limited free agency lead to a return to segregated and unequal schools? In a sense, yes. Market forces would help drive teachers to new jobs. However, all schools, emphasize all, can compete for the best talent, depending on the incentives they want to offer. It is up to superintendents, principals—and maybe parents—to know which incentives will work.

This is business thinking that has pervaded since there have been businesses. I know that school districts and teachers unions can make it work.

Back to Back: Two Good Reads on Entry Level Leadership and Culture

This month, I read two books back to back: Soldier’s Heart by Elizabeth Samet and Punching In by Alex Frankel. Both of these works are an excellent introduction into entry- level corporate culture and leadership development.

 Soldier’s Heart is a civilian English professor’s take on the leadership culture of West Point, based on her 10 years experience as a faculty member. Professor Samet is in a rare, but well qualified position to pen Soldier’s Heart. Only a fifth of the academy’s faculty is civilian instructors; the rest are military officers on rotation or “regular Army.” Samet’s academic interest also makes her special; she has studied the dynamic of command and obedience in American literature.

 Soldier’s Heart is not the first work about West Point by a soldier or civilian, but it comes from the most interesting perspective: an outsider working on the inside.

Soldier’s Heart has a balanced look at the military culture. Samet writes that no cadet wants to be, in one cadet’s words, a “non-thinking slasher,” someone who would kill for the glory of war, or the sake of killing.

West Point is, and has always been, a literate culture. Classical literature through Armed Forces Editions educates and entertains soldiers in battle, and reinforces American values. She writes of books as weapons to spread ideas, and counter actions meant to curtail freedom.  But she also states that tales of war talk of motherhood or a woman’s love for soldiers—but not a woman’s love for soldiering. There is nothing about motherhood in the military culture, but there is the need to fight for mother.

The professor adds that today’s military culture has conflated military missions with spiritual missions; soldiers become instructed to regain faith when there seems to be little cause for faith. However, that might be necessary instruction to lead at a time when officers, enlisted and veterans are questioning our nation’s involvement in Iraq, a war that they believe to be unnecessary. 

This faith extends to open displays of the Seven Army Values: Loyalty, Duty, Respect, Selfless Service, Honor, Integrity and Personal Courage. Soldiers tape the Values to their dog tags. Soldiers also display the Soldier’s Creed, officially posted in 2003:

I will always place the mission first

I will never accept defeat

I will never quit

I will never leave behind a fallen comrade.

The Values and the Creed are possible not only because of the culture, but also because our soldiers are professionals who have chosen to serve. Samet sites one Army study that mentions that professional soldiers still fight for each other, as they did, for example in World War II, but they also accept the responsibility that Army has entrusted to them.

The Army, as an institution, has had mottos and mission statements longer than most American businesses, and has a culture where everyone must live by them. Some of the most successful corporations have copied the military’s strengths— and some of its imperfections. According to two employment sites, GIJobs.com and CollegeGrad.com, 24 of the Top 50 Military Friendly Employers in 2007 also hired 100 or more college graduates for their entry-level positions. It is safe to say that these companies use the same values to develop and retain their entry-level and military transitional hires.

Which brings me to the next question: can those without the military orientation become as successful in these firms as those who have served with honor? The answer, according to Alex Frankel’s Punching In, is sometimes, if you can get along to go along.

Values, missions, attention to detail and duty are part of the dialogue in Punching In, another work where an outsider looks inside, and serves on the front lines of indoctrination into corporate culture.

Frankel worked in entry-level customer service positions at United Parcel Service (UPS), Enterprise Rent-A-Car, The Gap, Starbucks and The Apple Store, took online aptitude tests with two retailers: Best Buy and Home Depot and went through the lengthy interview processes at The Container Store and Whole Foods.

Like the Army, these corporations try to engage and turn their workers into fanatical and loyal employees. Interestingly enough, he refers to front-line workers as the Brand Army of these firms and called UPS the Other Army, because of the company’s esprit de coir and the spit and polish appearance of the front-line workers. Both the Army and UPS do not accept alteration, recreational display or desecration of their uniform. 

Frankel respected UPS more than the other organizations, because their workers, especially the drivers, were the most trusted. He adds that this is necessary in because UPS workers are all in the field. They can track their locations, but any problems must be solved on route.  Each driver and their helper is like a platoon of soldiers; they must follow orders, but they have some lee way in how to execute them.

Frankel did not say the same about the other organizations. For example, he praised Enterprise’ efforts to motivate workers to believe that they can advance from desk clerks to regional managers—though he adds that further advancement is less possible. The company hires approximately 8,000 entry-level employees, although the rest of the work force is no larger.

Frankel shows how Starbucks has become a “third place,” a neighborhood-meeting place away from home and work, but believes this will be a difficult strategy to maintain because of the standardized appearance of the thousands of stores and employees.  He considers Apple Stores to be an excellent setting for those who are already fans of the technology; they need little indoctrination and training as well. And he shows The Gap to be little different from other retailers who are loathed by retail workers, a company bent on standards and policies that put store design first, product second, credit card sales third and the employees last.

Like the Army, these organizations have a uniform, policies and shared values, but unlike the Army, they can hire and fire at will. It was interesting that Frankel conveyed the most respect for the organization that was the most like the Army.

Given UPS’ success—the company maintains 80 percent market share against several large competitors, including the U.S. Postal Services—that’s quite a complement for our troops and the men and women who lead them.