4 de março de 2014

America's universities: where you're all too likely to be sexually assaulted


 Sofie Karasek


How many more victims have to speak out before US universities and the federal government take meaningful action?
Last Wednesday, 31 students filed two federal complaints against the University of California, Berkeley for failing to prevent, investigate, or discipline assailants in cases of sexual violence and harassment. I was one of the students. While our individual stories are unique, our experiences of sexual assault are all too common at universities across the United States.
My second semester at Berkeley, I was sexually assaulted on an off-campus trip with a student organization. I had never been involved in the group before that weekend in February 2012, whereas, my assailant was a leader in the group and older than me.
After it happened to me, I quickly learned from another leader in the organization that I wasn't the first person he had assaulted. She pressured him into resigning from his position in the group, which we hoped would temporarily deter him from assaulting anyone again. But I was still afraid that he would do it again because of his past history, so she consulted the Gender Equity Resource Center (GenEq), a supposed resource on our campus, for help.
To my surprise, GenEq, which is often a positive and inclusive space for many students, advised her against removing him from the organization. The Center advised that we should  "keep him close in case he does it again" so that he would "have a community of friends to support him in processing it". To me, this sounded bizarre: why should his healing process take precedent over the possibility that he could assault me again, or assault another person?
Not even a month after that conversation, I learned that he allegedly did assault another person. At that point, I was connected to three others who had all said they have been assaulted by him as well, and we turned to the university to officially report our assailant together.
No one ever confirmed having read my statement, and no one ever contacted me to take part in an investigation. After seven months went by with no response, I inquired into my case when I suddenly learned through a friend that he was going to graduate early. After multiple attempts to contact administrators, I was told that my case had "been resolved through an early resolution process" and that he had been found in violation of Berkeley policies, without specifying whether any disciplinary action had been taken against him. Shortly thereafter, he graduated.
It wasn't until a year and a half after my assault that I learned of the sanctions. According to Berkeley, he was put on "disciplinary probation" and had "engaged in counseling measures". They also said that: "any further misconduct during that probationary period could have resulted in further disciplinary action". How many survivors does it take for a serial perpetrator to be punished?
Like many victims, I felt I was alone at first, but I realized my experience of assault and then disappointing treatment from my university was all too commonplace, including at some of America's top institutions of higher learning.
In April of last year, I read about students connecting nationwide through social media to hold their universities accountable. I finally felt that I had agency in this process, and wanted to immediately prevent Berkeley from treating others as horribly as we were treated.
A month later, eight students and I filed a federal Clery Act complaint against Berkeley, hoping that the government could help us when our university would not. It's now been almost a year, and after multiple failed attempts to reach the Department of Education about our case, we have now filed yet another Clery Act complaint, in addition to a Title IX complaint with the Office for Civil Rights. Our complaint has grown from nine to 31 cases.
It is unacceptable that as we wait for the federal government to respond, more students are being sexually assaulted and continue to have their cases dismissed, mishandled, and ignored if they choose to report them. Several students had problems with the administrative process even after the first complaint and even after the state of California began auditing our school's handling of sexual violence.
While the intentions of the Department of Education and UC Berkeley may be different, the impact of their seemingly deliberate indifference to sexual violence is the same. Neither the Department of Education nor UC Berkeley have made the efforts necessary to address the pervasive culture of sexual violence on campus. Title IX is hardly enforced, and Clery Act violations cost $35,000 each – chump change to many universities who have endowments numbering in the millions or even billions of dollars.
This is not only disappointing, it is also dangerous for the students who attend college and is representative of a larger problem: our federal government is not adequately enforcing its own laws.
But the real cost of federal law violations cannot be measured in dollars. At Berkeley alone, survivors have been forced to drop out of classes, finish degrees sooner, switch housing arrangements, or else risk being assaulted again or terrorized by their assailants. Many students do not feel safe.
Sexual assault is an epidemic across college campuses; you are more likely to be sexually assaulted if you attend university than if you do not. And too often, the subsequent betrayal from the university is even worse than the assault itself. As one survivor stated: "If I knew what I know now, I wouldn't have reported my case ... I would have rather taken this secret to my grave than to have told anyone at Berkeley."
How many survivors have to speak before someone starts to listen?

    ‘O desemprego de jovens na Europa é uma bomba-relógio’

    Y en América Latina como estamos??

    • Musa dos protestos antiglobalização, a economista inglesa Noreena Hertz aponta as consequências para o futuro de uma geração sem empregos na Europa e comemora a volta do foco no crescimento das políticas econômicas europeias
    LUCIANNE CARNEIRO (EMAIL)
    Publicado:
    Atualizado:

    
Noreena Hertz, economista e professora da University College London, lança o livro ‘De Olhos bem Abertos: como tomar decisões inteligentes em um mundo confuso’
Foto: Terceiro / Divulgação

    Noreena Hertz, economista e professora da University College London, lança o livro ‘De Olhos bem Abertos: como tomar decisões inteligentes em um mundo confuso’ Terceiro / Divulgação
    RIO - Professora da University College London (UCL) e economista reconhecida pela busca de um capitalismo mais ético, a inglesa Noreena Hertz, de 46 anos, afirma que o desemprego juvenil na Europa é uma bomba-relógio. Para Noreena, que já foi capa de revistas como “Newsweek” e é nome frequente entre os palestrantes do Fórum Econômico Mundial, na Suíça, a permanência por muitos anos fora do mercado de trabalho compromete o futuro desses jovens e, mais do que isso, é um problema para a sociedade civil, já que acaba levando as pessoas às ruas. A despeito disso, ela comemora o fato de que enfim os governos europeus começam a pensar o crescimento como parte de suas estratégias pós-crise, após a onda de austeridade. Noreena lança este mês no Brasil o livro “De olhos bem abertos: como tomar decisões inteligentes em um mundo confuso” (selo Fontanar, pela editora Objetiva). Num mundo com um “dilúvio de informações’, diz ela, é preciso ser muito cuidadoso com o que se encontra na internet e sugere um questionamento constante dos chamados especialistas, que podem muitas vezes se enganar, como ocorreu na crise financeira.
    Logo depois da crise global houve um debate sobre o aspecto moral daquele momento e a necessidade de mudança. Acredita que algo mudou na sociedade?
    Acho que há um cenário dúbio. Por um lado, o setor bancário foi menos afetado por regulação do que se esperaria. Ao mesmo tempo, acreditava-se que após a crise o mundo poderia tornar-se mais igual e no fundo ficou mais desigual. Os mais ricos se deram melhor no momento pós-crise. Ao mesmo tempo, no entanto, vemos algum avanço. Nos Estados Unidos, a campanha à prefeitura de Nova York de Bill de Blasio debateu muito a desigualdade, tema também forte nos discursos de Obama. Além disso, cada vez mais presidentes de empresas avaliam que não é do interesse deles ter um mundo muito dividido. E percebem que têm um papel na resolução dos problemas, como no caso do desemprego juvenil.
    Como vê o desemprego juvenil na Europa?
    A situação é muito séria. Países como Itália, Grécia e Espanha têm mais de 50% da população abaixo de 25 anos desempregada. É uma bomba-relógio. Quando alguém não tem emprego por alguns anos, suas chances na vida são comprometidas. Isso afeta a sociedade civil, porque se pode esperar aumento nas manifestações. Não é um problema apenas para esses países: a Europa ainda está muito fragilizada economicamente.
    Como encara o declínio do Estado de bem-estar social na Europa?
    Como consequência da crise, temos o Fundo Monetário Internacional (FMI) demandando austeridade, corte de gastos e do déficit, o que afeta o quanto os governos podem gastar em bem-estar. Há muitos países menos desejosos ou capazes de financiar educação e saúde, por exemplo. A austeridade tem um impacto grande nas pessoas e na economia. Ela essencialmente reduz a capacidade de as pessoas consumirem num momento em que precisamos que elas consumam mais, para estimular o crescimento.
    Qual seria a alternativa?
    A Europa deveria ter focado mais em crescimento. Há necessidade de um investimento maciço em infraestrutura em muitos países europeus, o que aumentaria a competitividade no futuro e traria empregos. Agora estão começando a pensar nisso, finalmente entrou no discurso político a percepção de que precisamos focar no crescimento e pensar o que pode ser feito.
    Como analisa a situação da economia americana?
    É muito cedo para ser otimista demais sobre uma recuperação. O mundo hoje é tão interconectado que qualquer choque pode afetar a fase inicial de recuperação em que estamos. É preciso cautela.
    A senhora já foi chamada de economista antiglobalização muitas vezes, mas nega o rótulo. Como se define?
    Sempre fui muito internacionalista, acredito que as pessoas não deveriam ser limitadas pelo local em que nasceram. Numa economia global, é preciso governança global, de acordos globais para lidar com os problemas. Sempre me vi como uma pessoa "pró-global", a favor de uma globalização mais ética e justa. É uma aspiração pragmática: todos nos saímos melhor se todos se saírem melhor.
    No livro a senhora menciona as limitações dos especialistas e cita o fato de não terem previsto a crise. Qual é a importância de se questionar os especialistas?
    Na verdade, especialistas têm uma média baixa de acertos em geral em previsões e diagnósticos. A maioria dos economistas não previu a crise financeira. Pouco antes, Alan Greenspan falou sobre a segurança dos derivativos. Agências de rating falharam completamente. E não se trata apenas de economistas: médicos fazem um diagnóstico errado a cada cinco. É preciso ter muito cuidado para não acreditar cegamente nos especialistas e saber em quem acreditar.
    A senhora fala do atual "dilúvio de informações". Como o cidadão pode se proteger e se beneficiar do excesso de informações?
    Há definitivamente hoje um "dilúvio de informações". Apenas uma edição do jornal "New York Times" tem mais informação do que estaríamos expostos em toda uma vida no século XVII. Adicione a isso e-mails, internet, Twitter, Facebook... O desafio é descobrir no que confiar e em quem acreditar. Ao mesmo tempo, temos uma grande oportunidade de sermos nós mesmos compiladores de informação. Se há motivo para não confiar na versão oficial de algo, podemos buscar por conta própria ou pelos jornalistas-cidadãos. É uma grande oportunidade para ouvir as redes sociais. Só é preciso manter o cérebro ligado e tirar partido do dilúvio de informações e não se afogar nele.


     http://oglobo.globo.com/economia/o-desemprego-de-jovens-na-europa-uma-bomba-relogio-11780250#ixzz2uzrkBJHo 

    O Censo da Educação Básica


    04 de março de 2014 | 2h 06


    O Estado de S.Paulo
    Divulgado pelo Ministério da Educação (MEC), o Censo da Educação Básica apresenta duas informações importantes. Uma, positiva, é o crescimento de vagas de tempo integral - em que os alunos passam mais de sete horas na escola - no ensino fundamental. Entre 2010 e 2013, o aumento foi de 139%, passando de 1,3 milhão para 3,1 milhões. Desse total, 3,07 milhões são na rede pública e as 930 mil vagas restantes são na rede privada. Os estudantes nas escolas de tempo integral representam 11% do alunado do ensino fundamental.
    A outra informação, negativa, é o agravamento da crise do ensino médio, que tem 8,3 milhões de estudantes. Esse ciclo de ensino, que se encontrava estagnado, segundo o último Censo da Educação Básica, agora perde alunos. Em 2013, foram 64 mil matrículas a menos do que em 2012. Considerados os adolescentes e os jovens na faixa etária de 15 a 17 anos, que constituem o público-alvo desse nível de ensino, 15,8% estavam sem estudar em 2012. E, dos 84,2% que estavam numa escola, no final daquele ano, uma parte significativa ainda frequentava turmas de ensino fundamental. Ou seja, estavam com formação defasada.
    Com um currículo anacrônico e desvinculado da realidade social e econômica do País, quando comparado aos programas do ensino fundamental e superior, o ensino médio é hoje o principal gargalo do sistema educacional. Além da falta de qualidade, esse ciclo de ensino vive uma crise de identidade, uma vez que não prepara os estudantes nem para os exames vestibulares nem para o mercado de trabalho.
    Por isso, o desinteresse dos alunos e as taxas de evasão - principalmente na rede pública - estão deixando as autoridades educacionais apreensivas. Segundo o Censo da Educação Básica, só na primeira das três séries do ensino médio cerca de 30% dos alunos abandonam a escola ou são reprovados. Para tentar contornar o problema e atrair alunos, o MEC estendeu para o ensino médio ações antes circunscritas apenas ao ensino fundamental, como fornecimento de merenda, transporte escolar e livros didáticos. Para estimular os governos estaduais a modernizar a rede pública de ensino médio, o governo também aumentou os repasses federais para as Secretarias da Educação que apresentarem projetos inovadores, substituindo a divisão do currículo em disciplinas tradicionais, como português e matemática, por programas flexíveis e currículos diferenciados, que incluem ciência, tecnologia, cultura e trabalho. Os números do Censo mostram que essas providências não deram o retorno esperado pelas autoridades educacionais.
    Para tornar a escola mais atrativa para os jovens e oferecer uma alternativa ao ensino médio tradicional, o governo vem investindo na expansão do ensino técnico de nível médio, que entre 2010 e 2013 registrou um aumento de 84% no número de matrículas. O avanço é positivo. Mas, como muitas escolas técnicas foram inauguradas às pressas, por razões eleitorais, carecendo de professores em número suficiente e laboratórios equipados, a expansão desse tipo de ensino - que tem um total de 1,4 milhão de estudantes - estaria sendo feita em detrimento da qualidade, advertem os especialistas.
    Segundo o Censo, há 50 milhões de alunos matriculados no ensino básico. Desse total, 46% estudam nas redes públicas municipais; 36%, nas redes públicas estaduais; 17%, na rede particular; e o restante, nas escolas técnicas. O Censo também mostra que o número de matrículas nesse nível de ensino está caindo - só entre 2012 e 2013, as escolas perderam 500 mil alunos. A redução é atribuída pelo MEC à queda da taxa de natalidade, por um lado, e ao aumento das taxas de aprovação e à melhoria do fluxo escolar, por outro.
    O Censo da Educação Básica não avalia a qualidade do ensino, que é medida pelo Índice de Desenvolvimento da Educação Básica (Ideb). O Censo é apenas um retrato estatístico desse nível de ensino. Com base em seus números, o MEC pode estabelecer prioridades e formular políticas para melhorar esse ciclo de ensino.

    3 de março de 2014

    New All-Digital Curriculums Hope to Ride High-Tech Push in Schoolrooms

    Photo
    Launch media viewer
    A tablet for schools by Amplify, part of News Corporation. It is releasing a new digital English language arts curriculum. CreditChester Higgins Jr./The New York Times
    Continue reading the main storyShare This Page
    Continue reading the main story
    English language curriculums built entirely on a digital platform — replacing written textbooks, worksheets or printed study guides — are about to enter the market from several companies, with promises that they will change the nature of classroom learning across the country.
    The Obama administration has pledged to provide high-speed Internet connections to 15,000 schools over the next two years, districts are purchasing tablets and laptops for students, and on Friday, President Obama announced $400 million in corporate commitments from the software companies Adobe and Prezi, which will donate software to teachers. Meanwhile, other companies are rushing in.
    On Monday at an education conference in Austin, Tex., Joel Klein, the former chancellor of New York City public schools and the current chief executive of Amplify, the education unit of Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation, will introduce a digital English language arts curriculum for middle school.
    Mr. Klein said the new software, which will run on a variety of devices and is priced at $45 per student a year, includes videos, games and vocabulary apps and allows teachers to track student writing and give feedback directly online. “This is not a bunch of souped-up PDFs,” Mr. Klein said, referring to digital versions of print documents.
    McGraw Hill, the textbook publisher, will also announce this week that it has signed a partnership with StudySync, a company that creates digital English curriculum tools that have been deployed in 22,000 classrooms and are priced at about a third of Amplify’s rate.
    Scholastic Inc., the children’s publisher, is already a familiar player with Read 180, a digital curriculum that targets struggling readers and is currently used by about one million students in 40,000 classrooms across the country. This year, the company also introduced Codex, a more general middle school English digital curriculum that is being used in 4,300 middle school classrooms.
    Among the features of Amplify’s digital curriculum is the ability for teachers to see if students really understand vocabulary words when they use them in Twitter-like hashtags and other social media contexts. The company has also embedded videos relating to a range of classic texts that are included in e-reader form within the software. One example: to introduce “Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass,” the actor Chadwick Boseman, who played Jackie Robinson in the film “42,” performs an early scene with chilling intensity.
    And for a unit on Edgar Allan Poe, students can play a game in which they try to solve the murder of the author, using clues from several poems or stories as well as simulated coroner’s reports and crime scene files.
    Amplify, which introduced a tablet for K-12 schoolchildren last year, has invested about $100 million over the last two and a half years in its education businesses. The new English language arts software is aimed at sixth, seventh and eighth graders.
    Larry Berger, the president of Amplify Learning, the curriculum development unit, said the company planned a modest rollout of the product for the coming school year but eventually hoped to capture as much as 25 percent of the market.
    Technology in classrooms has experienced something of a bumpy rollout: When the Los Angeles Unified School District introduced its $1 billion effort last year to give every student an iPad (loaded with curriculum developed by Pearson, the large textbook and standardized test publisher), students quickly figured out how to hack the devices and wander onto noneducational websites. And Amplify itself had to suspendits tablet launch in Guildford County, N.C., because of safety concerns. (Amplify has since agreed to extend the county’s contract for another year at no additional cost so the schools can try the tablets again.)
    As Amplify introduces its new English curriculum, it could face obstacles from teachers wary of Mr. Klein, whose tenure in the New York City public schools was controversial, and of Mr. Murdoch, whose media conglomerate has been entangled in phone-hacking scandals that could leave educators worried about the company’s respect for student privacy.
    “Teachers do not trust either Murdoch or Klein,” said Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, the country’s second-largest teachers union. “They have a long road to go.” But Ms. Weingarten, who said she had viewed only very preliminary versions of the Amplify digital English curriculum, added: “They may have done some great things that makes it aligned to critical thinking in a way that people will say, ‘Wow, this is fantastic.’ ”
    Mr. Berger said that the Amplify curriculum was designed to meet the Common Core, standards for what students need to know and be able to do that have been adopted by 45 states and the District of Columbia. He said the software had enough material that a teacher could use it daily for fully planned lessons, but that it offered flexibility for teachers who wanted to design their own instruction.
    “What we try to do is classroom orchestration and choreography,” Mr. Berger said, “but not classroom scripting.”
    Patricia Depagter, a middle school English teacher in Tampa, Fla., tried Amplify’s seventh-grade curriculum for two weeks last month. She initially worried the students “would just stick their noses into the tablets” and not interact with each other or write much. Instead, while working on a unit reading Poe’s “The Tell-Tale Heart,” she said, students “would get up and walk around to talk to other kids, but would look to the tablet for evidence” for their discussion. “It’s so much more natural for them to have this technology in their hands.”
    Some teachers said they were not interested in committing to a curriculum entirely from one provider. Sandy Hayes, immediate past president of the National Council of Teachers of English and a middle school English teacher in Becker, Minn., said she loved to pull a range of technological options into the classroom, including programs like iMovie, Comic Creator and Garage Band. “This is the joy of teaching,” said Ms. Hayes, who had not reviewed Amplify’s curriculum, “being able to express your own creativity.”


    More generally, some observers questioned whether digital tools would enhance literacy more than superficially. “Being able to poke at words on screen and have them spin out videos for us could be compelling in the short term,” said Audrey Watters, who writes about technology and schooling on her blog, Hack Education. “But I’m not sure it’s intellectually fruitful.”

    College, the Great Unleveler


    By SUZANNE METTLER

    The Great Divide
    The Great Divide is a series about inequality.
    When the G.I. Bill of Rights of 1944 made colleges accessible to veterans regardless of socioeconomic background, Robert Maynard Hutchins, the president of the University of Chicago, worried that it would transform elite institutions into “educational hobo jungles.” But the G.I. Bill was only the first of several federal student aid laws that, along with increasing state investment in public universities and colleges, transformed American higher education over the course of three decades from a bastion of privilege into a path toward the American dream.
    Something else began to happen around 1980. College graduation rates kept soaring for the affluent, but for those in the bottom half, a four-year degree is scarcely more attainable today than it was in the 1970s. And because some colleges actually hinder social mobility, what increasingly matters is not just whether you go to college but where.
    The demise of opportunity through higher education is, fundamentally, a political failure. Our landmark higher education policies have ceased to function effectively, and lawmakers — consumed by partisan polarization and plutocracy — have neglected to maintain and update them.
    More Americans than ever enroll in college, but the graduates who emerge a few years later indicate that instead of reducing inequality, our system of higher education reinforces it. Three out of four adults who grow up in the top quarter of the income spectrum earn baccalaureate degrees by age 24, but it’s only one out of three in the next quarter down. In the bottom half of the economic distribution, it’s less than one out of five for those in the third bracket and fewer than one out of 10 in the poorest.
    That’s before we even begin differentiating by type of college. Higher education is becoming a caste system, separate and unequal for students with different family incomes. Where students attend college affects their chances of graduating and how indebted they will become in the process.
    Private nonprofits, schools like Stanford or Vassar, list the highest “sticker prices,” but the average student pays less than half of full fare. Some nonprofits provide generous need-based aid to low- and middle-income students, supplementing their federal aid. Others devote their resources instead to merit-based aid, courting students with high SAT scores, typically from higher-income backgrounds. These colleges rise in the rankings, but they also provide a disadvantage to poorer students who would benefit from more need-based aid, who struggle financially to stay enrolled and who take out more student loans to do so.
    Nearly three-quarters of American college students attend public universities and colleges, historically the nation’s primary channels to educational opportunity. These institutions still offer the best bargain around, yet even there, tuition increases have bred inequality. For those from the richest fifth, the annual cost of attending a public four-year college has inched up from 6 percent of family income in 1971 to 9 percent in 2011. For everyone else, the change is formidable. For those in the poorest fifth, costs at State U have skyrocketed from 42 percent of family income to 114 percent.
    The worst problems, though, occur at for-profit schools like those run by the Apollo Group (which owns the University of Phoenix), the Education Management Corporation or Corinthian Colleges. These schools cater to low-income students and veterans, but too often they turn hopes for a better life into the despair of financial ruin.
    Nearly all of their students take out loans to attend, and the amounts are staggering. Among holders of bachelor’s degrees, 94 percent borrow. They take on median debt of $33,000 per student, compared with just $18,000 at the nonprofits and $22,000 at the publics. The for-profit graduates have trouble finding jobs that pay enough to afford their debts, and 23 percent of borrowers default within three years, compared with just 7 percent from nonprofits and 8 percent from publics.
    Just when having a highly educated citizenry is more important than ever, how could we be failing so miserably at achieving it? It’s not as simple as politicians’ terminating laws or gutting funding. Federal student aid has actually increased considerably since 2007. But government has abdicated its leadership role.
    First, federal student aid has become less effective in promoting opportunity. In the 1970s, the maximum Pell grants for low-income students covered nearly 80 percent of costs at the average four-year public university, but by 2013-14 they covered just 31 percent. Presidents beginning with Bill Clinton introduced costly new tax policies to help with tuition, but these have failed to improve access for the less well off.
    Second, state governments, burdened by the growing cost of Medicaid, K-12 education and prisons, let higher education funding dwindle. Spending per full-time public student fell by an average of 26 percent in real terms between 1990-91 and 2009-10. Besides raising tuition, public colleges have had to squeeze resources at the schools themselves. For poorer students, graduating becomes all the harder as class sizes grow, online courses proliferate and support services are cut.
    Third, Congress, by loosening regulations, permitted for-profit colleges to thrive on the government’s dime. These schools, which enroll nearly a tenth of college students, use nearly a quarter of federal student aid dollars allocated through Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, and they account for nearly half of all student loan defaults. A 1998 rule allows them to gain up to 90 percent of their revenues from Title IV alone — a figure that does not include their substantial use of military education money. Even during the 2008 financial downturn, the top publicly traded for-profits enjoyed growth. Their upper management and shareholders benefit at the expense of American taxpayers and students.
    Ordinary young Americans who hoped college could be their route to a better future are the victims of a perfect storm of political winds. It began with existing public policies that required routine maintenance being left to wither. As Nancy Kassebaum, a former Republican senator from Kansas, told me, “Public programs, just like any other programs, need to be managed.” She remembers when bipartisanship functioned well enough to do so on higher education issues.
    Now Congress is more polarized than at any point in modern history, and it’s not just decisions on nominations and the debt ceiling that suffer. I examined votes on amendments to higher education bills and found that between the 1970s and 1995-2008 the partisan split doubled in the House and quadrupled in the Senate. Such division on minor adjustments to policies indicates why Congress has failed to address larger issues.
    That’s not the whole story, either. Plutocratic governance intensifies the dysfunction, as powerful industries still have the strength to bring politicians together across the aisle in a parody of true bipartisanship.
    The effect of polarized plutocracy is epitomized by Congress’s support for the for-profit colleges. Already in the late 1940s, one senator was criticizing them for “milking the system,” providing inferior training to veterans as a means to siphon off G.I. Bill funds. At that time and as recently as the early 1990s, lawmakers from both parties came together to investigate and regulate them. Fiscal conservatives in the Reagan administration, the Republican senators Bob Dole and Phil Gramm, and some Democrats of all stripes sought to rein in the industry’s use of federal funds.
    But by the late 1990s, Republican leaders championed the for-profits as the “private sector,” never mind that 15 of the large publicly traded for-profits receive on average 86 percent of their revenues from federal student aid. Plutocracy helped bring House Democrats onboard, as the industry wooed them through strategic lobbying and campaign contributions. The result? In the House of Representatives, where Democrats and Republicans agree on almost nothing, they have united to protect $32 billion taxpayer dollars for the for-profit college industry.
    Is this who we are as a nation? Is this what we aspire to? The federal government must step up and lead. Tougher regulations of the for-profits, long overdue, are the quickest way to help the poorest Americans who seek college degrees. States, too, should be held accountable; a perverse incentive permits them to gain more in federal student aid if they commit less of their own resources to helping poorer students. Nonprofit schools must also be responsible partners with government in furthering opportunity. Lawmakers should curtail the money we spend on tuition tax policies and for-profits, and invest more in Pell grants and community colleges.
    Most of us were raised to believe that going to college was the surest path to a better life, but for many today that belief can be perilous. Unless we can claw back polarization and plutocracy enough to restore opportunity in higher education, the United States will become a society in which rank is fixed and our ideal of upward mobility but a memory.
    Suzanne Mettler, a professor of government at Cornell University, is the author of “Degrees of Inequality: How the Politics of Higher Education Sabotaged the American Dream.”

    2 de março de 2014

    A MOOC MYSTERY: WHERE DO ONLINE STUDENTS GO?

    FEBRUARY 28, 2014

    POSTED BY , The New YorkER


    mooc-ged-580.jpeg
    What if, as a novice teacher or professor, you began a course and the entire class decided to leave—either from apathy or boredom or the popular student conviction that whatever is not a part of the lesson is inherently more interesting than what is? That old educator’s nightmare is now a digital reality: massive open online courses, or MOOCs, born a few years ago of the seemingly well-paired utopianisms of Silicon Valley and the élite American university, are seeing that classroom management can be a difficult task without a classroom.
    When the Times declared 2012 the “Year of the MOOC,” it seemed, in the words of the paper, that “everyone wants in,” with schools, students, and investors eager to participate. But, as can happen in academia, early ambition faded when the first few assessments were returned, and, since then the open-online model appears to have earned an incomplete, at best. An average of only four per cent of registered users finished their MOOCs in a recent University of Pennsylvania study, and half of those enrolled did not view even a single lecture. EdX, a MOOC collaboration between Harvard and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has shown results that are a little more encouraging, but not much. And a celebrated partnership between San Jose State and Udacity, the company co-founded by Sebastian Thrun, a Stanford professor turned MOOC magnate , also failed, when students in the online pilot courses consistently fared worse than their counterparts in the equivalent courses on campus.
    Some of the problems encountered by MOOCs echo those of an earlier model of alternative learning. Last month, the General Educational Development exam, or G.E.D., was replaced by a more challenging computer version. Like MOOCs, the G.E.D, which has been around since 1942, is partially an attempt to save time and money in education, and to extend opportunity to students outside the traditional classroom. As a marker of high-school equivalence, it holds the promise that an entire academic career can be distilled into the knowledge required to pass a five-part exam.
    But according to a September, 2013, American RadioWorks report, of the forty per cent of G.E.D.-holders who go on to college, fewer than half complete more than a year, and only about four per cent earn a four-year degree. The additional rigor of the redesigned exam might not be the solution. The military tried a similar approach when, in the nineteen-seventies, it raised the G.E.D. scores required for entry. Even then, G.E.D. applicants quit or were thrown out of the service at a higher rate than enlistees with high-school degrees.
    Here we stumble up against a familiar MOOC-themed mystery. Motivated students complete their G.E.D. as a waypoint for college, and, like those who signed up for the online courses, around ninety-five per cent of them don’t succeed. But what happens in between?
    Somewhere short of the finish line, something that the G.E.D. cannot measure, and that theMOOCs aren’t equipped to address, is siphoning these students off. It may have to do with the noncognitive aspects of education. In 2010, three University of Chicago economists found that, while the G.E.D. does approximate a high-school degree as a measurement of scholastic aptitude, it reveals nothing about the non-academic skills—traits like persistence, motivation, and reliability—that are developed over the course of a high-school career, and that are necessary for success in work or at college.
    The G.E.D. is not the same sort of learning experience as a MOOC, but there are points of contact between the two. They both attempt to trade most, if not all, of the traditional classroom experience, where a student’s noncognitive skills are tried and tempered, for access and convenience. And that can seem like a good deal. On a physical campus, courses are often a negotiation between motivation and curriculum, in which the success of a class depends as much on how much sleep students get, who’s sitting next to whom, or personal opinions of the instructor as on the lesson plan and lecture notes. When a student’s attention drifts in a classroom, it can be regained. A skilled teacher can bounce the curriculum back into the messy real world of education, focussing and flipping distractions into the lesson in a sort of pedagogical jujitsu.
    Traditional classroom educators long ago realized that when you crowd ten or twenty or a hundred students close together, learning, by default, becomes a social experience. Rather than constantly fighting the disorder of the system, some classes learned to harness it, adapting their practices and assumptions accordingly. Around the seminar table, where students work face to face and elbow to elbow, the harmonies and dissonances between individuals can be played out in an academic discussion. The class can draw upon differences in perspective and persuasion to build a conversation, solve a problem, or interpret an experiment.
    Online classes also have this potential, expanded many times over by the Earth-shrinking capacities of the medium. But, in an online discussion or in an offline MOOC meet-up, it’s easier for a person to disengage or not show up, to “agree to disagree”—that polite fig leaf of social shorthand—and fall out of the experience. The same point of disagreement that sparks a classroom discussion for an hour has the potential to scatter Internet participants to the four corners of the Web in minutes.
    If, like the G.E.D., MOOCs are missing a vital social element, that doesn’t mean they’re without value. The data tells us that very few of the students who enroll in a MOOC will ever reach its end. In the ivy, brick, and mortar world from which MOOCs were spun, that would be damning enough. Sticking around is important there; credentials and connections reign, starting with the high-school transcript and continuing through graduate degrees. But students may go into an online course knowing that a completion certificate, even offered under the imprimatur of Harvard or UPenn, doesn’t have the same worth. A recent study by a team of researchers from Coursera found that, for many MOOC students, the credential isn’t the goal at all. Students may treat the MOOC as a resource or a text rather than as a course, jumping in to learn new code or view an enticing lecture and back out whenever they want, just as they would while skimming the wider Web. For many, MOOCs may be just one more Internet tool or diversion; in the Coursera study, the retention rate among committed students for a typical class was shown to be roughly on par with that of a mobile app. And the London Times reported last week that, when given the option to get course credit for their MOOC (for a fee), none of the thousand, or so students who enrolled in a British online class did.
    In the context of the ever-expanding Web, where apps and sites live in some multivalent state of becoming and unravelling and becoming again, the preliminary grade of incomplete may not be so bad for MOOCs. In traditional courses, incomplete almost always signals frustrated expectations, left lazily unmet. MOOCs’ incomplete also means potential. It hints at an unclaimed territory, for teachers and students, novices and autodidacts, to explain in their own ways. Someday soon they may find a better and more sociable way to do so, but for now there is still much to learn.
    Photograph: Troy Aossey/Getty