Read on Twitter
Really sitting with this piece and feeling very, very conflicted. No doubt, this is a fantastic program for the students who participate. Potentially life-changing at the individual level. But... (1/) https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/18/us/politics/college-admissions-poor-students.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage
None of this is new, except for the fact that elite institutions are suddenly involved. Dual enrollment--and that's what this is--has been around since the 1980s. States have been funding it. Community colleges and broad access four-years have been doing it. (2/)
And we have known that dual enrollment--in any type of college!--increases the educational outcomes of low-income, racially minoritized, and CTE students since the 2000s! And that part of why it does that is because it helps students see themselves as college students. (3/)
See this study from 2008: https://bit.ly/3k49h8I
Or this one from 2012: https://bit.ly/3samDmG
Or my (now very old) dissertation from 2005, finally published in part in 2012: https://bit.ly/2OS4zj9 (4/)
Or this one from 2012: https://bit.ly/3samDmG
Or my (now very old) dissertation from 2005, finally published in part in 2012: https://bit.ly/2OS4zj9 (4/)
Dual enrollment has always been exciting and impactful, but apparently the NYT only finds it so when the Harvards of the world, not the CUNYs, are involved. This does 3 things... (5/)
First, it suggests that the only worthy--or most worthy--institutions for students to aspire are the "elites." That publics are less-than. And it implies a scarcity model--that there are only a handful of institutions that are "good enough." (6/)
Second, given the scarcity model, it diverts our gaze away from changing systems to changing institutions and students. It implies that we should make a small handful of worthy institutions more open to a small handful of (really awesome) students. INSTEAD OF... (7/)
Investing in lots of institutions and lots of students! Why not make all institutions--especially publics--as amazing as the Harvards of the world are purported to be? Why not spend time improving the system instead of reallocating a small number of spots? (8/)
And third, it implies that students just need to have their eyes opened and aspirations raised and they'll apply to "better" schools. This is implicit deficit framing. Why don't institutions and systems take responsibility for lifting EVERYONE's gaze? (9/)
To be clear, this program is awesome and life changing for the students in it, and I celebrate that. I love programs that work for individuals, and do not want to take away from micro-level success. (10/)
I just wish we'd stop putting individual programs on pedestals and start insisting on systems change. And also start honoring the work that's been done in this area FOR YEARS. (done)
