Fenwick graduation 2012
Ponitz graduation 2012
Cars and Parts Swap Meet
Dayton Daily News education reporter Scott Elliott writes about schools, kids, teaching and learning.
Home > Blogs > Get on the Bus > Archives > 2006 > September > 21 > Entry
A promise: Kids will get to college
(Heather Roth of Kalamazoo, Mich.)
Suppose you could magically give every kid who lives in the city of Dayton the means to go to college. Would that really motivate people, especially upwardly mobile middle class families, to move into the city?
We may get the chance to find out.
Back in the summer I wrote about a local group that had this dream of making college possible for Dayton kids and at the same time providing an economic boost to the city.
They’re no longer dreaming. Now they’re serious about doing it.
In today’s paper the anti-sprawl group, Grassroots Greater Dayton, acknowledged they have a program ready to go and they hope to start fund-raising in November with the goal of offering scholarships to kids in 2008.
The program is modeled after the Kalamazoo Promise, a similar effort that’s about a year old in Michigan that offers full scholarships to any Michigan college to kids who graduate after 13 years in the city’s public schools.
Dayton’s proposal is different in interesting ways. I’m working on a follow up story that will look at how things are going in Kalamazoo and how these differences might affect the Dayton program. Among them:
—The scholarships are limited. Kalamazoo offers full rides to any state school. Dayton would offer $5,000 a year for four years. This is probably a function of fiscal realities here.
—Private and charter eligibility. In Dayton, all kids living in the school district would be eligible for up to $20,000 in scholarships, not just kids attending the school district. Why? I’m guessing it may have to do with who might fund the program. Some education minded individuals and foundations locally have pet interests outside of the school district, like the Mathile Foundation (Catholic schools) and the Fordham Foundation (charter schools).
—Only local colleges are included. Kids could take their scholarship money to these 10 schools: Sinclair Community College, Central State University, Wright State University, Clark State Community College, Edison Community College, University of Dayton, Wilberforce University, Wittenberg University, Antioch University, Kettering College of Medical Arts.
On the surface, the logic of this move is easy to see. It keeps smart local kids in the community and bolsters local colleges. But I think Kalamazoo’s program — with free tuition to any state school, including excellent schools like Michigan and Michigan State — is more attractive and more likely to bring out of the area families to Kalamazoo (a Realtor group there says it has gotten calls about the program from every state).
An argument could be made that this limits the program if students can’t use it to attend some of the state’s best schools, like Ohio State and Miami University.
Would the Dayton Promise, as proposed, be enough to move your family into the city of Dayton?
(Image credit: Ed Roth)
Permalink | Comments (14) | Categories: Colleges and Universities, Dayton Public Schools
Comments
By UDHarvardBC
September 23, 2006 2:25 PM | Link to this
Mary, to answer your question: Typically, tuition remission for dependents varies from institution to institution and whether or not it is private or public. For example, the North Carolina higher education system (UNCs, NCSU, etc) does not provide tuition remission for professor’s dependents (I know a prof in the system). UD and Boston College, for example, are two private institutions that do offer tuition remission if the student is accepted (no preferential treatment). Harvard, on the other hand, does not offer tuition remission or assistance to its faculty (or administrative/professional staff). Most institutions do provide some sort of tuition remission for the employees themselves, but mostly university administrative staff take advantage of such offerings (usually limited to one or two courses a semester after a period of service). The tuition assistance programs are not limited to higher education institutions, but are typically offered through many employers these days. Education is never a bad investment for an employer or employee!By GTH7
September 23, 2006 1:10 AM | Link to this
It’s a tremendous idea, but it’s not bold enough. $5,000 a year? That will barely make a dent in most tuitions, today, let alone within a few years. Sure, you’re covered at Sinclair (at least right now), but Dayton? WSU? Drop in the bucket. It would be great for people who are already in the city and can’t move for financial reasons. But, if you’re goal is to draw middle class families back, I see it as unlikely to be much of a success.By Oldprof
September 22, 2006 9:09 PM | Link to this
Well, since UD has invoked me: I’m at a community college where I’m currently doing the equivalent of seven and a fraction courses. Plus major projects in assessment and course development. And maybe I’ll take on another one where the part-time instructor may not be able to continue. Doesn’t feel like I’m failing to earn my salary—moreover, my campus has scrapped like a marmoset to cut costs wherever we could. Why do we think that public functions all must be done on the cheap, anyway—are we all THAT stingy? But yes, conclusion: the high costs of education are in part the pressures of competition (more spent annually on marketing, recruitment, student activities, and athletics than on faculty + libraries) and the administrative glut created by the byzantine funding and student financial aid systems.By Mary
September 22, 2006 9:00 PM | Link to this
“UDHarvardBC”, just curious, do professors get free rides/tuition for their own children these days? Isn’t that part of the problem in controlling costs?By UDHarvardBC
September 22, 2006 8:08 PM | Link to this
Rick, Rick, Rick. Do you have any real concept of the trends in higher education or the nature of the professoriate? I beg to differ, first, about your comments regarding sabbaticals. At most institutions, sabbaticals are taken after one has attained tenure (usually 6-7 years into a tenure-track job) and only for a semester. Full-time professors are typically paid for one semester and any additional semesters are half-pay or whatever is negotiated with department and academic division heads.These sabbaticals are not “free timeâ€? for the professor to sit around but rather a period of intensive research and writing. Limitations to the number of courses a professor can teach? I bet OldProf will tell you that for the most part, professors at most institutions of higher education are teaching at least two, more often three or four courses, a semester in addition to research responsibilities, academic advising, writing research grant proposals, and community work (e.g. working with schools), etc. With the exception of large research institutions (often referred to as “R1s”), professors actually have so many courses that they don’t have time for research projects, which is one of the main criteria for tenure and promotion. This is often the case for junior, non-tenured faculty who are trying to establish themselves in their fields (just like anyone else would try to do in their respective job fields). Getting on to the initiative, I think it could be productive and encourage kids to strive to attend college of some sort. One major barrier, especially for low income students is first and foremost access to institutions. This could be a start but will not be the solution to bigger issues.By Rick
September 22, 2006 5:54 PM | Link to this
The underlying problem is the high cost of higher education, which has done nothing to contain costs. There a lot of accrediting and other organizations out there that force colleges to be wasteful. Sabbaticals are terribly wasteful. As are the limitations on how many courses a professor can teach at one time. What is it? Two courses? That is ridiculous.By Chris
September 22, 2006 3:06 PM | Link to this
The problem with that logic is that you assume Dayton students will be able to afford and move out and go off to college. Many students that go to Sinclair or Wright State go there because they can live at home. Dayton’s plan does not allocate money to room and board, and a $5000 grant will do little in influencing a university to offer it for free. Why wouldn’t organizers want to encourge recipients to strive to go to Miami of Ohio or Ohio State? It sounds like a lame attempt to persuade business leaders that money will stay in Dayton.By j in huber
September 22, 2006 2:16 PM | Link to this
Scott, I think I shared your questions about the need for students awarded these grants enroll in local colleges but the more I think about it, I can see the arguments in support of keeping these students local. The farther a student gets away from home to go to college, the less likely they will return home to work and live. I believe the goal of education and especially a college education is to prepare and train highly qualified workers, college graduates need to be encouraged to stay in the Dayton area, in order to keep this city viable. By keeping the grants local, we’ll get locally trained college graduates that stay in town. It is a win-win situation, and brilliant problem-solving and a good reason for a local business and individuals to invest in local students.By Oldprof
September 22, 2006 1:18 PM | Link to this
J raises an interesting broader point, one that the NBC network news raised when reporting on Branson’s billion-dollar donation to Clinton’s environmental initiative: has private philanthropy replaced public responsibility? Will the money for these scholarships be a tiny fraction of all the taxes that some well-off people don’t pay (courtesy of cozy special-interest tax breaks)? At what point can the wealthy decide to pull all their charity and let the peasants starve? It wouldn’t take magic to enable everyone in the nation to afford college—it would take a tax structure that’s fair across the board (no city commission doling out 75% property tax cuts to anyone who asks—not anywhere in the entire nation!), and politicians who fund colleges sufficiently so that tuition goes down to the point where students can once again do the honorable, self-esteem building act of working their way through.By Scott Elliott
September 22, 2006 10:40 AM | Link to this
J, I am working on a follow up story for the weekend (probably Monday’s paper), but I can answer your questions. Students in the program must remain in “good standing” as defined by the college they attend. That is fuzzier than Kalamazoo, which requires a 2.0 GPA. The money will be paid directly to the colleges. In Kalamazoo, they award the Promise money after students have gotten all the other grants and aid they qualify for. In other words, kids who got full rides for some other reason did not also get Promise scholarships. An interesting development in Michigan — colleges want the Promise kids bad because they are bringing money. Several state schools are offering free room and board to any Promise scholarship holder. Interesting, huh? The Promise creates not only opportunity but demand for Kalamazoo kids across the state. Dayton’s proposal is different in that it would not provide full scholarships and would be limited to local colleges. So the impact may be different.By j in huber
September 22, 2006 10:00 AM | Link to this
How is this discrimination? Businesses and individuals give their money freely. It is not some county wide tax that will only affect DPS students, that is discrimination. This program is no different than the multitude of foundations set up in various suburban schools districts that provide scholarships to their graduates. I am not sure how this will work; will students be required to maintain a certain GPA in order to receive funding? Will the money be sent directly to the colleges and universities, rather the students? What if a student already has a full ride scholarship, will they still get the grant? Good idea but lots of questions need to be answered before I would support it.By Dave
September 22, 2006 9:49 AM | Link to this
Never fails. A group works hard to help some folks, and the first two letters to this blog can’t say anything nice, they just complain. Must be terrible to go through life with such a negative attitude.By keith
September 22, 2006 8:21 AM | Link to this
Having a group fundraising only for city of Dayton schoolkids sounds like discrimination to me. They will raise this money from businesses all around the area and where people who live all around the area work, but they will only use the money for certain kids. Imagine if suburban groups had funds and only made them available to suburban kids, but excluded city of Dayton school district residents even though the funds were raised from the few business left in the city.By Mary
September 21, 2006 7:35 PM | Link to this
I think more could be done for more students if these same groups also focused on controlling college costs. Maybe throwing more money at the problem is like throwing gasoline on a fire.