Higher Education vs Housing Market

Back in June (Yes, almost a year ago...I know...) I listened to this piece on NPR Morning Edition about how the crash of the housing market has impacted the higher education decisions of students across the nation. I began to overlay this thought process on the Montana University System (MUS), where I have real experience.

In case you didn’t listen to the NPR story here’s a very basic synopsis: Students who are the children of parents who own homes in which the price decreased in the housing market collapse are applying to community colleges rather than flagship schools. One psychologist believes this shift is because students are internalizing the fact that their parents feel “poor” and because it is more difficult for parents to borrow against the value of their home to send their child(ren) to school.

While I recognize this is ONE psychologist’s opinion based on ONE study, it got me thinking about how the MUS fails to consider the systemic reasons for student success or lack thereof. I recognize that the Board of Regents only has power over the MUS, but each Regent has a certain level of influence in various areas, departments, and industries around the state, and most are active in the Legislature. However, in my experience the Regents view the issue like this: Many students are not successful in a 4-year setting, so we should encourage them to begin their higher education tenure in a 2-year setting because the students and university system see more success at that level. Many of these students do not continue their education immediately upon completing a 2-year or certificate program, so they enter the workforce sooner.

It is absurd that no one looks at, or perhaps simply fails to mention, the systemic reasons for lack of student success. Here’s an example: In 2005 in Columbia Falls Elementary School District #6 v. State the Montana Supreme Court declared that the State Legislature was violating the state’s constitutional requirement to fund and establish free schooling to provide students with a “quality” education. Has so much changed since then in terms of funding in Montana?

What about young children in School District #2 (Billings) with class sizes of 40+? How can a teacher in that environment supervise and develop a relationship with each student? How can a teacher recognize the possibility of a learning concern, family abuse, bullying, at-risk behaviors, or the many other things that may interfere with learning? It’s not like we’re talking about high school seniors who should, hopefully, be preparing to enter college courses. Speaking from a developmental standpoint preschool through 3rd or 4th grade is VITAL to the success of students. Without the development of strong relationships with caregivers, including teachers, at this age it is difficult if not impossible for learning to occur. If relationships aren’t developed with teachers throughout grade school, will they ever be?

I understand these aren’t the only issue influencing student success, but I urge us all to consider addressing systemic causes for the numerous problems we see every day. Band-Aids are only temporary fixes to long-term problems; without systemic change we will forever be buying more Band-Aids. I have much more to say on the topic and hope to return to it soon. In the meantime I’d love to see some discussion on solutions.