Tuesday, February 07, 2006

 

Save Perkins!

Okay, I don’t usually go in for anything this directly political-advocacy, but desperate times call for desperate measures.

According to IHE, Bush’s 2007 budget includes, once again, the total elimination of the Perkins Vocational and Technical Educational program. (This is separate from the Perkins loan program, which provides loans to students, which they also want to eliminate.) The Perkins Vo-Tech program provides funding directly to community colleges to buy equipment for programs designed to prepare students directly for jobs.

Without the Perkins program, we would have to shut down many of our most popular and successful occupational programs – culinary arts, nursing, graphic design, just off the top of my head. These are areas in which students who are looking to join the workforce quickly can lift themselves out of minimum-wage hell. Through hard work, these students gain the skills to become productive citizens who pay taxes into the system.

The colleges pay the operating expenses of these programs ourselves. We usually take losses on these programs, which we cross-subsidize by moving the ‘profits’ from the more traditional ‘chalk-and-talk’ disciplines. We do this because we recognize an obligation to the community to provide an avenue for people with a work ethic (but without wealthy parents) to get a foothold. Technology in these areas advances rapidly, and we simply couldn’t cover the costs of keeping up with industry standards in these fields if we had to cover all the costs ourselves.

Community colleges are the lowest-cost providers of higher education. We provide no-frills education and training in locations close to where people live. We serve students who can’t afford to go elsewhere. But we’re not welfare agencies – students have to do the work, learn the material, and get the credentials through their own efforts.

What, exactly, is the objection to this program?

It seems to me that liberals should like us since we help the poor and struggling, and conservatives should like us since receiving the benefit of our help is contingent on working hard. In fact, when the Bush administration tried the same move last year, it was defeated by a bipartisan coalition concerned about protecting job-training programs. A substantial number of Republicans joined the Democrats on this one, understanding correctly that the alternatives to job training are more expensive than the training itself.
When we train a struggling single mother to become a registered nurse (and we do!), everybody wins.

In IHE, the only justification offered by the administration is a sense that Perkins is redundant with No Child Left Behind. That doesn’t make sense at all: NCLB stops in high school. NCLB doesn’t cover equipment purchases. Whatever its merits, it’s simply not applicable at this level.

I’m sure that the administration would respond by challenging us to develop other revenue streams. There’s nothing inherently wrong with that, and we’ve been working on it for years. Philanthropy is great, as far as it goes, but it’s not reality to think that philanthropy will fill gaps this large at this level. Our graduates tend not to give six or seven figure gifts; relatively few registered nurses are millionaires. Businesses and hospitals occasionally help if they see an immediate and direct payoff, but they have immediate cost pressures, too, and no business wants to foot the bill to train someone to go work for a competitor.

Add to those considerations the greater ‘strings’ that attach to philanthropic gifts, and the greater costs of fundraising, and the greater cyclical swings and unpredicatability of funding from year to year, and it quickly becomes clear that philanthropy simply can’t fill the gap by itself. Large capital purchases are budgeted years in advance – we just can’t sustain programs on whims.

I have no great faith in the Bush administration’s taste for listening to reason, as my regular readers know, but this is just too basic. Training the economically-marginal for real jobs is central to our mission, and we can’t do it without external capital funding. If you can, please let your representatives hear you on this one.

Comments:
AMEN!

There have been points in the US where the citizenry saw an education as a public good: we started Normal schools, community colleges and tech schools, Land Grant universities. We funded public institutions so that fees and tuition were minimal, and many people could go to school. We helped servicepeople with a really meaningful GI bill.

The result was economic growth, improvements in health, civil rights, tolerance.

Now we seem to have the bizarre idea that education is merely a private good, and we're unwilling to use our taxes for education. Support for public schools has dropped tremendously. Instead of grants, students are lucky to get loans, and even those are getting rarer and less helpful.

We're supporting our K-12 institutions less well.

Rich and upper middle class people will still have access to all levels of education.

But we're going to pay as a nation in some terrible ways.

We've just gone so wrong somehow.
 
I wrote about this on my blog (oligomania.blogspot.com) yesterday. It is a crime and we (the average citizen) will pay the price. K-12 students need more than fill-in-the-blank educations. Not everyone is bound for college and, if they don't pass "the test," then there are few options for them. Voc-ed provides the foundation for so many students to prepare them for skilled trades and careers.

Moreover, what about all the teachers who will now lose jobs? I already know a few who lost their jobs this year due to cuts in voc-ed funding.

If I really believed in conspiracy theories, I would suggest that it is another way to make the rich richer (outsoure to foreign countries) and the poor poorer.
 
Don't elect people like George Bush. If you do, don't complain
 
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?