| 来源类型 | Report |
| 规范类型 | 报告 |
| Promoting innovation in higher education | |
| Andrew P. Kelly; Kevin J. James | |
| 发表日期 | 2017-06-23 |
| 出版年 | 2017 |
| 语种 | 英语 |
| 摘要 | Editor’s note: The next president is in for a rough welcome to the Oval Office given the list of immediate crises and slow-burning policy challenges, both foreign and domestic. What should Washington do? Why should the average American care? We’ve set out to clearly define US strategic interests and provide actionable policy solutions to help the new administration build a 2017 agenda that strengthens American leadership abroad while bolstering prosperity at home. What to Do: Policy Recommendations for 2017 is an ongoing project from AEI. Click here for access to the complete series, which addresses a wide range of issues from rebuilding America’s military to higher education reform to helping people find work. Advances in technology, concerns about costs, and a changing population of students have combined to drive innovation in higher education. Online learning has enabled students across the country to enroll in and complete a college degree; competency-based programs allow students to earn credit based on what they can show they have learned, allowing some to progress to a degree much faster than is possible under a traditional academic calendar; and new models of delivery are providing targeted, short-term training that is directly tied to the labor market. Meanwhile, age-old models like apprenticeships are garnering renewed attention but remain on the periphery. Some of this is occurring outside of traditional higher education, but existing institutions have also taken it upon themselves to create new delivery models and credentials. Despite these innovations, and despite the new demands on colleges and universities to provide an affordable, valuable education, most of post-secondary education looks much the way it did when federal financial-aid policies were created a half-century ago. The majority of students choose a traditional degree program at a traditional institution, working over the course of two or four or six years to earn the 60 or 120 credit hours necessary to receive an associate’s or a bachelor’s degree. Those courses are organized around a traditional academic calendar and a time-based model of learning. This model works quite well for many traditional students — and the payoff to a bachelor’s degree has grown. But the growing group of nontraditional students, many of which must juggle school, work, and family, often need more flexibility. Federal policy also favors traditional degree programs and often excludes the kind of targeted occupational training and workplace-learning opportunities that can serve as an on-ramp to the labor force. Too often, advocates dismiss such offerings as “dead ends” because graduates might not go on to earn as much as degree-holders over the long term. Our policies and political culture reflect these biases. Students who engage in workplace learning like apprenticeships, or who pursue industry-recognized credentials, are often ineligible for federal aid. In other words, well-intentioned federal policies designed to limit fraud often serve as key obstacles that discourage innovation in post-secondary education. Outdated federal definitions lock us into time-based notions of what qualifies as post-secondary education, which biases the system against models that award credit on the basis of student learning or workplace learning. Aggressive new federal regulations have raised transaction costs for providers trying new things and have constrained those that might have considered innovation. Reliance on accreditors as gatekeepers of federal aid makes it difficult for new institutions to compete on a level playing field. The result is a system that must serve an increasingly diverse group of students but has been slow to change, in part because of existing federal policies. What’s needed is an agenda to promote innovation in post-secondary education by freeing leaders at existing institutions to develop new models of teaching and learning; expanding access and raising the profile of nontraditional options like apprenticeships; and creating space for students to choose innovative options that promote student learning. Such an agenda should include three main goals: Reform rules that enshrine a time- and place-based model of post-secondary education; use federal levers to encourage experimentation and flexibility while protecting taxpayers and students; and create an outcomes-based path to aid eligibility that creates space for innovative models to compete. To view the full chapter, visit: https://nationalaffairs.com/storage/app/uploads/public/doclib/HigherEd_Ch5_JamesKelly.pdf |
| 主题 | Higher Education |
| 标签 | Center on Higher Education Reform ; Higher education ; What to do policy recommendations on higher education |
| URL | https://www.aei.org/research-products/report/promoting-innovation-in-higher-education/ |
| 来源智库 | American Enterprise Institute (United States) |
| 资源类型 | 智库出版物 |
| 条目标识符 | http://119.78.100.153/handle/2XGU8XDN/206403 |
| 推荐引用方式 GB/T 7714 | Andrew P. Kelly,Kevin J. James. Promoting innovation in higher education. 2017. |
| 条目包含的文件 | 条目无相关文件。 | |||||
除非特别说明，本系统中所有内容都受版权保护，并保留所有权利。
