Reasons why students don't attend college complex and varied
BY JOHN BURKHARDT
Among parents, policymakers and educators, there is considerable discussion about the importance of education in preparing citizens for the future. There are many assertions made about how the public regards the importance of education, particularly as it relates to high school preparation and participation in college. But sometimes it takes a great deal of patient listening to understand public opinion.
Some of the most nettlesome barriers to improving educational attainment in the state have roots in Michigan communities and reflect attitudes and priorities that are set at the local level.
These issues will need to be addressed locally. Among these challenges are the need for stronger high school curricula; equitable access to advanced placement courses; patterns of student counseling for college; capacity support for community colleges and regional universities; and the kinds of encouragement and support for young people that can only come through local churches, youth organizations and family programs.
Many policy environments
While communities may share certain perspectives and challenges based on their locations, histories, political and economic circumstances, we have found that Michigan—for purposes of education at least—is not one cultural and policy environment, but many.
Better understanding of the local factors that shape educational outcomes has important implications for teachers, school officials, and policymakers.
First, it can help us cut through confounding and inconsistent observations and findings that describe partial determinants for educational aspiration and may help us reconcile expressed beliefs (such as those reported on surveys) with inconsistent family and community behaviors.
Second, a review of information gathered at the local level gives us a basis for questioning some of the tacit assumptions that have led to assertions about Michigan’s educational “culture.”
What drives behaviors at local level
If we are to achieve the transformation of attitudes, public support, and student choices necessary to increase educational attainment in the state, we have to be more sophisticated in interpreting what drives educational behaviors at the community level, where curriculum decisions, parent influence and student choices are made.
For 18 months, researchers have been working in Michigan communities to study attitudes about who should attend college. Using a technique that employs moderated dialogues between community members, we have listened as teachers, parents, community leaders, ministers, retirees and young people responded to the question, “Who is college for?”
While the “text” of the discussion focuses on college attendance, the “subtexts” are many, dealing with perspectives held about merit, equity, fairness, the importance and purposes of a college education, the cost of attendance, and family expectations for their children’s happiness and success.
Consistent with survey data that
suggests that parents believe college is
important, we see a consensus across the
state about the connections between education
and a child’s economic success and
personal happiness.
More important meaning
But the deeper conversations that occur after participants state the “expected” responses carry more important meanings.
For instance, some parents say they hope their children do well in high school, but they believe it is all right for them to work after school and on weekends.
Some parents say that college is very important, but they fear that going away to college will mean their children will leave the state or not return to their communities after graduation.
Many believe strongly that college should be reserved for those most highly qualified, but collectively express reservations about standardized test scores or high school grades as predictors of success.
Community conversation important
Community discussions provide insight into important viewpoints that surveys and polling don’t necessarily make clear. These viewpoints reflect attitudes that lead to “mixed messages” sent by the public to policymakers and local leaders, and also mixed messages to children, teachers and school officials.
Using software to “map” the state in terms of educational attainment and other community factors, we have found interesting distinctions at the local level.
Not surprisingly, there are significant
differences across the state in terms of
educational attainment of residents. But
the patterns may be different than what
many would expect. Cities attract highly educated people (on closer analysis
they
locate in a ring around the central city
core), and some rural areas of the state
have far lower educational levels than
our urban areas.
Explaining differences
Within communities, there are sharp differences in educational attainment that often may be explained by housing patterns and “microclimates.” In some cases, the presence of a dynamic minister or an effective youth program may shed light on a pattern of educational achievement that differs from what would be expected based on typical explanations associated with race, economic class or prior educational exposure.
It is important to note that the broadly asserted explanation that citizens in our state continue to depend on a faded manufacturing economy for employment and that families need to “wake up” to a new economic reality is not substantiated by what we hear locally.
This is not a theme suggested by anyone discussing their children’s future, and there is no evidence that young people are leaving school because they believe they can easily find a job in a manufacturing environment.
In fact, people point out that lucrative manufacturing jobs no longer exist, which necessitates the need for increased higher education. There is evidence that areas of the state that have never had a manufacturing base are similarly stagnated in terms of educational growth and are changing no more quickly than our industrialized areas. The explanation of a“state of denial” is not supported by our local mapping and research.
Realigning priorities to reflect reality
If there is still work to do it is to realign our public policies and public priorities to reflect what the public already expresses as true for them and their families.
Neither do we hear any resonance in local conversations to the idea that Michigan is falling behind other states in educational or economic success. Yes, people see and seem to understand that things are not prospering (and they cite many different reasons for why this is occurring), but comparing Michigan to other states in disparaging ways does not seem to motivate behavior at the community, institutional or family levels.
If we are to achieve the transformation of our educational culture that is described by our educational and political leaders, we would be well advised to listen to what is really being said within our own communities and around our dinner tables.
Underestimating the complexity of public attitudes can lead to misguided strategies and may keep us from connecting with those who hold the key to changing attitudes within our state regarding educational attainment. We run the real chance of insulting—rather than inspiring—our citizens, just when we need them most.
John Burkhardt is a professor of higher education and the director of the National Forum on Higher Education for the Public Good at the University of Michigan. Burkhardt, who studies attitudes about who should attend college, was a member of the Cherry Commission on Higher Education and Economic Growth.