2. Recognize and reward teachers — This is merit pay for professors. The plan calls for the top 25 percent of professors to earn a bonus. Top bonuses would be $10,000 per class.
3. Separate budgets for teaching and research — This would allow colleges to better evaluate what kind of bang for its buck professors are providing. Splitting the pots of money would make it clearer how and why professors are paid.
4. Require evidence of skill for tenure — This would set easily-defined goals to earn tenure. For instance, a professor would have to earn a rating of 4.5 on a 5-point scale to be eligible for tenure. Likewise, a professor might have to teach at least three classes a semester, with at least 30 students in each class, for a set number of years before becoming eligible for tenure.
5. Results-based contracts with students — This amounts to a mortgage good faith estimate for students. Students would have to sign a document outlining the school’s class sizes, teacher evaluations, SAT scores of incoming students and other data that would allow them to make a better informed decision.
6. Funding in the hands of students — This proposal would take out the middle man in public funding. Some public money is given to schools as a tuition subsidy for student. The Texas Public Policy Foundation argues students will make the best decision if they get the money directly. Critics contend this creates a voucher system for colleges.
7. Create results-based accrediting alternatives — This proposal would gradually move schools away from traditional accrediting and create a national body similar to the Securities and Exchange Commission to evaluate college claims and actual results. Colleges that can not fulfill their recruiting pitch could be investigated for fraud. Establishing new accreditation would make it possible for more schools to enter the market. [snip]
Rick Perry Leads the Way on Higher-Ed Reform [snip] First, runaway college costs are an important “kitchen table” issue for American families. After the economic woes of the past decade, many families are wondering how they are going to afford to send their kids to college (the yearly cost of attending an in-state four-year public college now tops $16,000 per year).
Second, like our public schools, America’s colleges are woefully underperforming. The authors of the recently published book Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on College Campuses found that 45 percent of college students show no improvement in critical skills after two years in college. Troubling statistics are forcing many families to question whether investing time and money in college is really worth it, particularly since many college graduates are struggling to find employment and appear to have gained few marketable skills.
Third, colleges are creating a heavy burden for taxpayers. According to the National Association of State Budget Officers, higher-ed spending accounts for approximately 10 percent of state spending. And federal subsidies for higher education (including grants, loans, tax credits, and direct payments to schools) amount to well over $100 billion annually.
Fourth, colleges have long been an intellectual driver of progressivism in American life. I am sure I am not the only person who found my undergraduate and graduate school years to have been a tiring indoctrination in leftist ideas. It is surely no coincidence that young American voters are more included to vote for the Left after this indoctrination.
For too long, the Right has neglected the need to challenge and reform American higher education. But in the current political climate, reforming colleges and universities (as well as our student-aid policies) is an eminently winnable fight — and one that would yield big gains for students and taxpayers.
Conservative leaders around the country should follow Rick Perry’s lead. [end]
LA Times story that underscores reasons for Perry’s 7 Solutions push:
Take back the liberal arts - Too often, liberal arts courses aren't attuned to undergraduates looking for a broader understanding of the world but toward professor's narrow interests. -
………”Amherst once had a college-wide course called "Evolution of the Earth and Man," team taught by faculty from geology through genetics. It was exactly the sort of thing that drew people into the sciences. However, that offering no longer exists. Such classes don't earn points for the professors who plan them. Instead, they are expected to be doing research that will lead to tenure or higher ranks, which often means they are concentrating on ever more obscure topics.
An American Mathematical Society study of introductory courses found that only 11% were taught by regular faculty. Professors making their mark in "orbit structure of diffeomorphims of manifolds" feel their talents would be wasted teaching Math 101. But they might mull Albert Einstein's words to young researchers: "You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother."
There are still colleges where the contents of the bottles match the labels. But they tend to be more modest schools, ones that don't expect their faculties to make national reputations in research. Occidental College in Los Angeles is such a school, as is Hendrix College in Arkansas and the new Quest University Canada in British Columbia. And there are excellent dedicated liberal arts colleges within affordable public systems. New College of Florida and St. Mary's College of Maryland are two; also Arizona State University's Barrett honors college and Macaulay Honors College at the City University of New York, which waives tuition for students who maintain a 3.5 grade-point average.
As high school students and their parents consider college options, they might want to take a careful look at catalogs and course descriptions. In higher education these days, it's buyer beware.” [end]
Why do we even need bricks and mortar schools in the 21st Century? Why do we need to "reward teachers" when the best could earn money like rock stars? Don't you get it? All that "classroom teaching" stuff is over.
Hence, Perry's "solutions" might have been productive back in the 70s, but as of now they are more hazardous than beneficial.