OSEPI Full Policy
_
Abstract
Currently, there exists a great disconnect between the 7.7% of Ohioans who are unemployed and the jobs they are unable to get as a result of educational or vocational training that many have not received. Of that 7.7%, 15.3% have had less than a full high school education, 9.8% are high school graduates with no college education, and 4.8% are individuals who obtained a bachelor’s degree or higher education. Colleges have rapidly become the default arena for talent and skill development as well as eventual job placement, but we argue that a redefinition of the term “college” (and, consequently, a realignment of perceptions of that new definition) is needed in order to positively impact both the social and economic climate of this state. Whereas college is generally accepted to mean a four-year institution, we would define college as any type of post-secondary education, including two-year colleges, career centers, and technical or trade schools. We posit that providing individuals with viable means of talent development outside of typical four-year institutions with the goal of obtaining and retaining jobs will serve to alleviate the immediate unemployment crisis in the state of Ohio. Through an allocation of un-appropriated funds we would develop a system of career advisors and an advertising campaign aimed at promotion of post-secondary options other than four-year degrees. Based on our research and discussion with key constituents, this program would increase college enrollment, decrease unemployment, and provide more individuals opportunity for self-fulfillment.
Problem Analysis
Background
There are 443,000 of people in the state of Ohio who do not have the necessary means to provide for those who are dependent on them. (Jan. 2012), (ODJFS). If each of them only had one dependent, there could be 443,000 people who may not have a meal because their parents are unemployed. (ODJFS) In order to decrease the number of people who are unemployed, we need to provide them with an opportunity to develop their talents. Most commonly, people pursue college as their primary means of talent development. However, we would define college outside of a four-year institution. We would define college as any type of post-secondary education, including two-year colleges, career and technical trade schools.
The absence of this 7.7% of Ohioans from the workforce accounts for $2,810,500 in revenue for the state of Ohio per year given that each unemployed individual received $1,000 per week on average (ODJFS). Of the percentage of Ohioans unemployed, 15.3% have had less than a full high school education, 9.8% were high school graduates with no college education, and 4.8% were individuals who obtained a bachelor’s degree or higher education. (Dec. 2010) (U.S. census bureau) With this policy, we hope to address these issues through the expansion of the definition of college and the funding associated with it. We would argue that providing these individuals with talent development and the ability to obtain and retain a job would satisfy the immediate unemployment crisis in the state of Ohio. However, the issues associated with the definition of college as only a four-year program are farther reaching than unemployment.
Enrollment
Enrollment in both community colleges and two-year programs has increased substantially in the past five years. With economic recession, community college enrollment increased by about 800,000 students between 2007-09. In 2008-09 academic years there were more than 1,000 community colleges in the U.S. with enrollment of 7.2 million students or 1/3 of all postsecondary students. Six out of ten students were enrolled part-time (NCES, College Board). Specifically in Ohio, the state estimated enrollment at community colleges jumped 17.4% from 2008-2009 (Crain’s Cleveland Business). The Cleveland Plain Dealer attributes this increase to both unemployment rates (people going back to school) and the price of four year-universities (recent high school grads who can’t afford to go straight into a four-year university). Also, it’s because of President Obama’s proposal (July 2009) to commit $12 billion to the nation’s community colleges in hopes of producing 5 million more graduates by 2020 (Cleveland Plain Dealer).
While the numbers are increasing in two-year institutions and community colleges, 48% of lower-income students and 36% of higher-income students perceive that one needs a college degree in order to be successful in life (College Board). Lower income students are also “more likely than their higher-income peers to strongly disagree that starting at a two-year college and transferring to a four-year college is just as good as attending a four-year college from the beginning” (College Board). 9% of lower-income students strongly disagree and 16% somewhat disagree, whereas 4% of higher income students strongly disagree and 21% somewhat disagree (College Board). Students perceive that a “prestigious” four-year college is better than a “typical” four-year college. Going to a community college, working full time, and joining the military are plausible yet not attractive options. We need to work to change students’ perceptions by increasing the quality of talent development afforded to students at all post-secondary options.
Nationwide, 17% of the at-risk eighth graders who dropped out of high school and obtained their GED enrolled in some form of post-sec. education within three years of receiving their GED, compared to 46% of the at-risk 8th graders who manage to graduate with a high school diploma. (Economics of Education Review)
Graduation Rates
In Ohio, the freshman-to-sophomore retention rate at public four-year colleges is 77.1% compared to 57.3% at public two-year colleges. The national averages are 78.2% and 60.0%, respectively. By extension, the three-year graduation rates of degree- and certificate-seeking students at two-year colleges is 25.2% compared to a 57.0% six-year graduation rate of bachelor’s degree-seeking students at four year colleges. The national averages are 27.5% and 57.7%, respectively (College Board). While Ohio is in line with the national rates, there is still a huge disparity between the graduation rates at two- and four-year institutions. Furthermore, the term “four-year institution” is itself somewhat of a misnomer. According to the 2004 CIRP Freshman Survey (TFS) and the National Student Clearinghouse (NSC), “just fewer than four in ten students (38.9%) complete a degree after four years...The steep increase in degree completion between four and five years reinforces the common notion that many students today take five years to complete a baccalaureate degree” (6). Not only are retention and graduation rates of four-year institutions less than ideal (to say the least), those who do remain at the same university and eventually graduate from it are taking longer and longer to do so.
Employment
In 2009, the average earning of a full-time worker ages 25-34 in Ohio consistently increased based on education.
Ohio gave an average of $4,293 to each full time enrolled student in 2010-2011 (College Board).
“Ohio's unemployment rate was 7.6 percent in February 2012, down from 7.7 percent in January, according to data released by the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services (ODJFS). The number of workers unemployed in Ohio in February was 443,000, down from 447,000 in January. The number of unemployed has decreased by 74,000 in the past 12 months from 517,000. The February unemployment rate for Ohio was down from 8.9 percent in February 2011. The U.S. unemployment rate for February was 8.3 percent, unchanged from January” (ODJFS Press Release).
In the state of Ohio over 75% of those that are unemployed never completed or attempted any post-secondary education. Those with associate degrees account for only 8.4% of the unemployed workforce, while bachelors degrees account for over 9%.
Financial Impact
While Ohio gives a lot of money to students, it is not proportional to the number of students enrolled full time.
The financial impact of attending a four-year institution is much greater than the financial impact of attending a two-year institution. In 2011, the average in-state tuition price at a public four-year institution in Ohio was $8,904, whereas the average in-state tuition price at a public two-year institution in Ohio was $3,608. In 2011, the average net tuition and fees, including room and board for full time undergraduate students at a public four-year institution in Ohio was $11,380, whereas the average at a public two-year institution in Ohio was $6,600. The average net price of tuition and fees at a public two-year institution was -$810, after subtracting grants and federal tax benefits (College Board).
If you get a four-year degree, you have around a 50% chance of getting a job that was your first career goal. Most graduates start in a related field until a job opportunity becomes available. You have 66% chance of having student debt. That average debt comes out to be $23,186 (FinAid) per graduating student. The standard payment on debt is approximately $266 per month with 6.8% interest. (NPSAS) That means it takes you 10 years to pay off. If you pursue what we’re defining as post-secondary where 44.8% of students file for student loans your average debt is $12,307.(NPSAS) Your earning potential is $37,990 per year compared to high school graduates of $29,448, based on averages (US census bureau). According to the US Department of Labor, of the 40 associate degree programs listed 85% are projected to have an increase in the number of jobs available. You could say this will give you an 85% chance of getting a job. That means you’ll pay off your debt from your two-year degree program in 4.5 years at the same rate and interest.
Proposed Solution:
We acknowledge that this issue far extends beyond that of monetary funding, however, we feel that the most immediate barrier to the access to “college” (including our redefinition) is insufficient resources. Our proposal is to distribute funds currently not appropriated to Workforce Exploration Programs consisting of career advisors for high school students and an advertising campaign to reduce the stigma and promote alternative forms of post-secondary education outside of four-year institutions.
Action Plan:
Broadly, this policy recommendation is to reallocate funds from existing workforce development programs to the “talent development” achieved by post-secondary education and to increase the awareness of these options among high school students and those not currently pursuing post-secondary options. This reallocation will include redirecting working funds from the state to Community Colleges and other post secondary programs in an effort to increase their budget for bringing in career counselors, creating ad campaigns, and expanding curriculum to include career development education. Redefining scholarship criteria and lessening restrictions on whom the scholarships may be awarded to will allow current grant money to be disbursed for efficiently and fairly. Our final recommendation is to create a program uniting local Ohio businesses and firms with local talent in order to reduce the job attrition rate of post graduates and create a new source of funding apart from the state grants to help students afford further education.
This reallocation will serve to expand the availability of counselors to Ohio schools by providing funding to OCAN and other such non-profits to circulate instructors and counselors to schools in need. In order to lessen the initial cost of such an investment, it is proposed that one counselor serve multiple schools on a circulating basis rather than each school adopting one’s own for those that currently have none. This counselor would provide the necessary services of promoting all career development and alternative post secondary options rather than just 4 year institutions. Overcoming the stigma of alternative post secondary options being viewed as reserved for those that have failed at other attempts is essential to achieving greater participation by more individuals in post secondary education. Providing information to students early on will aid in promoting all post-secondary options as viable and worthwhile.
The second step in removing stigma is to take an active stance in addressing the poor perception of career, technical and other 2-year schools. One of the most effective means of relaying new information to the public is the advent of an ad campaign. In our “ONLY” campaign, we strive to remove the myth of 2-year institutions and similar post secondary options only getting one so far in life. We turn this concept upside down by advertising successful and independent individuals who only attended a 2-year college. This program could be individualized for all 2-year public colleges to promote and market their programs to a broader network than previously possible. While advertising campaigns for for-profit institutions such as Brown Mackie College, Kaplan College and University of Phoenix are nothing new, they neither address the true issue of our campaign, (that being confrontation of the tangible stigma head on), nor do they have the scope and cohesiveness possessed by a state wide campaign of public schools. After the initial stages of this campaign, it is hoped that the production behind this effort could be transferred to the colleges themselves where the increased tuition received by the institution would be enough to offset the cost of production and labor. Perhaps the programs at each university could primarily be run by students looking for experience in marketing, public relations or graphic design. Ultimately the goal is to create a self-sufficient program that serves the marketing and public relation needs of our smaller universities at a statewide scale.
In addition to allocating operating funds already in place, it is our hope to increase the funding source for students by facilitating the creation of a partnership between businesses and prospective students. This program is difficult to define without engaging in discussion with businesses, however, the basic model is akin to the military program of exchanging a college education for 2-6 years in the military post graduation. It is beneficial for both parties. The student gets a college education at a post secondary education, specifically focusing on those achieving 2-year degrees, and the company gains an employee in whom they are confident. The logistics of picking students and the entailed requirements are still up for discussion, but the beginnings of such a program are well within reach.
As this policy is implemented, we hope to see an increase in interest in alternative post secondary options. To accommodate the expected influx of students, as well as incentivize pursuing such options, it will be necessary to provide them with proportional financial backing provided a student entering a four-year institution which, according to the College Board, was on average $4,293 in 2010-2011. Ohio is doing well in the amount of financial support it gives post secondary options, but the state is not performing well when assistance is looked at on a per-capita basis. In order to better the distribution of assistance within the state as well as incentivize students to pursue options outside of a 4-year degree we want to redefine award criteria for all state grants and scholarships. Most are already written as such, but we would like to go so far as to no longer permit awards for for-profit institutions, excluding private institutions. The reasoning is to further promote community college, vocational, and technical training over for-profit institutions.
Benefits and Drawbacks:
The challenges of implementation include not only locating funding for such an overarching program, but also the assessment of the most efficient use of dollars. Our strategy of building a relationship between companies and students in the form of co-ops/internships/scholarship sponsorships will help bridge the gap in the budget, however the buy-in needed from each company will come with it’s own set of difficulties. The most pressing object to this policy is the difficulty of addressing the stigma of alternative forms of education as well as subtly yet effectively dealing with the accompanying social issues. Policy is never the conclusion of efforts in creating a new era of social policy, but it is always the beginning.
With the introduction and implementation of this policy, long term issues of college access and the associated cost increases will be undertaken and solved through a feasible solution with the propensity for further growth in Ohio, both educationally and economically. This solution is not only fiscally feasible but also fiscally responsible as it begins to alleviate the stress on four-year institutions to admit, support, house, and retain the record number of students entering Ohio’s universities. That responsibility extends to taxpayers as this policy funds its efforts through a reallocation of funds rather than an increase in spending. Of course, that same fiscal responsibility translates into social responsibility as more families are able to return to school and therefore pursue better paying jobs in Ohio, thus breaking the cycle of job attrition and the loss of recent graduates to other states.
Proposed Results
There are four inherent results that accompany the usage of this policy. First, this policy will decrease the unemployment rate in Ohio in both the short and long term. It will be easier for people with training to obtain and retain jobs once they acquire the necessary skills through some form of post-secondary education. Second, it will combat poverty through a competent and talented workforce. This is a direct result of the decreased unemployment rate; if more people are employed, then more people are able to provide for their families and the poverty rate will decrease. Third, it will conserve jobs and economic development in the state through providing a skilled workforce for those jobs. There would be little reasoning behind moving out of the state of Ohio if one can obtain and retain employment within the state. Fourth, this policy will combat the social stigma of attaining a degree or talent development outside of a four-year institution. This will be a direct result of the advertising campaign. By promoting the concept of college as talent development, high school students, employers, and society in general will come to terms with post-secondary enrollment consisting of a variety of options rather than only four-year institutions.
Conclusion
If adopted, the recommendations of this policy proposal would ameliorate some of the major problems facing the state of Ohio, including unemployment and poverty rates as well as poor job retention rates within the state, by providing society with a clearer view of post-secondary education as one that results in the development of an individual’s unique talents and contributions to Ohio.
Abstract
Currently, there exists a great disconnect between the 7.7% of Ohioans who are unemployed and the jobs they are unable to get as a result of educational or vocational training that many have not received. Of that 7.7%, 15.3% have had less than a full high school education, 9.8% are high school graduates with no college education, and 4.8% are individuals who obtained a bachelor’s degree or higher education. Colleges have rapidly become the default arena for talent and skill development as well as eventual job placement, but we argue that a redefinition of the term “college” (and, consequently, a realignment of perceptions of that new definition) is needed in order to positively impact both the social and economic climate of this state. Whereas college is generally accepted to mean a four-year institution, we would define college as any type of post-secondary education, including two-year colleges, career centers, and technical or trade schools. We posit that providing individuals with viable means of talent development outside of typical four-year institutions with the goal of obtaining and retaining jobs will serve to alleviate the immediate unemployment crisis in the state of Ohio. Through an allocation of un-appropriated funds we would develop a system of career advisors and an advertising campaign aimed at promotion of post-secondary options other than four-year degrees. Based on our research and discussion with key constituents, this program would increase college enrollment, decrease unemployment, and provide more individuals opportunity for self-fulfillment.
Problem Analysis
Background
There are 443,000 of people in the state of Ohio who do not have the necessary means to provide for those who are dependent on them. (Jan. 2012), (ODJFS). If each of them only had one dependent, there could be 443,000 people who may not have a meal because their parents are unemployed. (ODJFS) In order to decrease the number of people who are unemployed, we need to provide them with an opportunity to develop their talents. Most commonly, people pursue college as their primary means of talent development. However, we would define college outside of a four-year institution. We would define college as any type of post-secondary education, including two-year colleges, career and technical trade schools.
The absence of this 7.7% of Ohioans from the workforce accounts for $2,810,500 in revenue for the state of Ohio per year given that each unemployed individual received $1,000 per week on average (ODJFS). Of the percentage of Ohioans unemployed, 15.3% have had less than a full high school education, 9.8% were high school graduates with no college education, and 4.8% were individuals who obtained a bachelor’s degree or higher education. (Dec. 2010) (U.S. census bureau) With this policy, we hope to address these issues through the expansion of the definition of college and the funding associated with it. We would argue that providing these individuals with talent development and the ability to obtain and retain a job would satisfy the immediate unemployment crisis in the state of Ohio. However, the issues associated with the definition of college as only a four-year program are farther reaching than unemployment.
Enrollment
Enrollment in both community colleges and two-year programs has increased substantially in the past five years. With economic recession, community college enrollment increased by about 800,000 students between 2007-09. In 2008-09 academic years there were more than 1,000 community colleges in the U.S. with enrollment of 7.2 million students or 1/3 of all postsecondary students. Six out of ten students were enrolled part-time (NCES, College Board). Specifically in Ohio, the state estimated enrollment at community colleges jumped 17.4% from 2008-2009 (Crain’s Cleveland Business). The Cleveland Plain Dealer attributes this increase to both unemployment rates (people going back to school) and the price of four year-universities (recent high school grads who can’t afford to go straight into a four-year university). Also, it’s because of President Obama’s proposal (July 2009) to commit $12 billion to the nation’s community colleges in hopes of producing 5 million more graduates by 2020 (Cleveland Plain Dealer).
While the numbers are increasing in two-year institutions and community colleges, 48% of lower-income students and 36% of higher-income students perceive that one needs a college degree in order to be successful in life (College Board). Lower income students are also “more likely than their higher-income peers to strongly disagree that starting at a two-year college and transferring to a four-year college is just as good as attending a four-year college from the beginning” (College Board). 9% of lower-income students strongly disagree and 16% somewhat disagree, whereas 4% of higher income students strongly disagree and 21% somewhat disagree (College Board). Students perceive that a “prestigious” four-year college is better than a “typical” four-year college. Going to a community college, working full time, and joining the military are plausible yet not attractive options. We need to work to change students’ perceptions by increasing the quality of talent development afforded to students at all post-secondary options.
Nationwide, 17% of the at-risk eighth graders who dropped out of high school and obtained their GED enrolled in some form of post-sec. education within three years of receiving their GED, compared to 46% of the at-risk 8th graders who manage to graduate with a high school diploma. (Economics of Education Review)
Graduation Rates
In Ohio, the freshman-to-sophomore retention rate at public four-year colleges is 77.1% compared to 57.3% at public two-year colleges. The national averages are 78.2% and 60.0%, respectively. By extension, the three-year graduation rates of degree- and certificate-seeking students at two-year colleges is 25.2% compared to a 57.0% six-year graduation rate of bachelor’s degree-seeking students at four year colleges. The national averages are 27.5% and 57.7%, respectively (College Board). While Ohio is in line with the national rates, there is still a huge disparity between the graduation rates at two- and four-year institutions. Furthermore, the term “four-year institution” is itself somewhat of a misnomer. According to the 2004 CIRP Freshman Survey (TFS) and the National Student Clearinghouse (NSC), “just fewer than four in ten students (38.9%) complete a degree after four years...The steep increase in degree completion between four and five years reinforces the common notion that many students today take five years to complete a baccalaureate degree” (6). Not only are retention and graduation rates of four-year institutions less than ideal (to say the least), those who do remain at the same university and eventually graduate from it are taking longer and longer to do so.
Employment
In 2009, the average earning of a full-time worker ages 25-34 in Ohio consistently increased based on education.
Ohio gave an average of $4,293 to each full time enrolled student in 2010-2011 (College Board).
“Ohio's unemployment rate was 7.6 percent in February 2012, down from 7.7 percent in January, according to data released by the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services (ODJFS). The number of workers unemployed in Ohio in February was 443,000, down from 447,000 in January. The number of unemployed has decreased by 74,000 in the past 12 months from 517,000. The February unemployment rate for Ohio was down from 8.9 percent in February 2011. The U.S. unemployment rate for February was 8.3 percent, unchanged from January” (ODJFS Press Release).
In the state of Ohio over 75% of those that are unemployed never completed or attempted any post-secondary education. Those with associate degrees account for only 8.4% of the unemployed workforce, while bachelors degrees account for over 9%.
Financial Impact
While Ohio gives a lot of money to students, it is not proportional to the number of students enrolled full time.
The financial impact of attending a four-year institution is much greater than the financial impact of attending a two-year institution. In 2011, the average in-state tuition price at a public four-year institution in Ohio was $8,904, whereas the average in-state tuition price at a public two-year institution in Ohio was $3,608. In 2011, the average net tuition and fees, including room and board for full time undergraduate students at a public four-year institution in Ohio was $11,380, whereas the average at a public two-year institution in Ohio was $6,600. The average net price of tuition and fees at a public two-year institution was -$810, after subtracting grants and federal tax benefits (College Board).
If you get a four-year degree, you have around a 50% chance of getting a job that was your first career goal. Most graduates start in a related field until a job opportunity becomes available. You have 66% chance of having student debt. That average debt comes out to be $23,186 (FinAid) per graduating student. The standard payment on debt is approximately $266 per month with 6.8% interest. (NPSAS) That means it takes you 10 years to pay off. If you pursue what we’re defining as post-secondary where 44.8% of students file for student loans your average debt is $12,307.(NPSAS) Your earning potential is $37,990 per year compared to high school graduates of $29,448, based on averages (US census bureau). According to the US Department of Labor, of the 40 associate degree programs listed 85% are projected to have an increase in the number of jobs available. You could say this will give you an 85% chance of getting a job. That means you’ll pay off your debt from your two-year degree program in 4.5 years at the same rate and interest.
Proposed Solution:
We acknowledge that this issue far extends beyond that of monetary funding, however, we feel that the most immediate barrier to the access to “college” (including our redefinition) is insufficient resources. Our proposal is to distribute funds currently not appropriated to Workforce Exploration Programs consisting of career advisors for high school students and an advertising campaign to reduce the stigma and promote alternative forms of post-secondary education outside of four-year institutions.
Action Plan:
Broadly, this policy recommendation is to reallocate funds from existing workforce development programs to the “talent development” achieved by post-secondary education and to increase the awareness of these options among high school students and those not currently pursuing post-secondary options. This reallocation will include redirecting working funds from the state to Community Colleges and other post secondary programs in an effort to increase their budget for bringing in career counselors, creating ad campaigns, and expanding curriculum to include career development education. Redefining scholarship criteria and lessening restrictions on whom the scholarships may be awarded to will allow current grant money to be disbursed for efficiently and fairly. Our final recommendation is to create a program uniting local Ohio businesses and firms with local talent in order to reduce the job attrition rate of post graduates and create a new source of funding apart from the state grants to help students afford further education.
This reallocation will serve to expand the availability of counselors to Ohio schools by providing funding to OCAN and other such non-profits to circulate instructors and counselors to schools in need. In order to lessen the initial cost of such an investment, it is proposed that one counselor serve multiple schools on a circulating basis rather than each school adopting one’s own for those that currently have none. This counselor would provide the necessary services of promoting all career development and alternative post secondary options rather than just 4 year institutions. Overcoming the stigma of alternative post secondary options being viewed as reserved for those that have failed at other attempts is essential to achieving greater participation by more individuals in post secondary education. Providing information to students early on will aid in promoting all post-secondary options as viable and worthwhile.
The second step in removing stigma is to take an active stance in addressing the poor perception of career, technical and other 2-year schools. One of the most effective means of relaying new information to the public is the advent of an ad campaign. In our “ONLY” campaign, we strive to remove the myth of 2-year institutions and similar post secondary options only getting one so far in life. We turn this concept upside down by advertising successful and independent individuals who only attended a 2-year college. This program could be individualized for all 2-year public colleges to promote and market their programs to a broader network than previously possible. While advertising campaigns for for-profit institutions such as Brown Mackie College, Kaplan College and University of Phoenix are nothing new, they neither address the true issue of our campaign, (that being confrontation of the tangible stigma head on), nor do they have the scope and cohesiveness possessed by a state wide campaign of public schools. After the initial stages of this campaign, it is hoped that the production behind this effort could be transferred to the colleges themselves where the increased tuition received by the institution would be enough to offset the cost of production and labor. Perhaps the programs at each university could primarily be run by students looking for experience in marketing, public relations or graphic design. Ultimately the goal is to create a self-sufficient program that serves the marketing and public relation needs of our smaller universities at a statewide scale.
In addition to allocating operating funds already in place, it is our hope to increase the funding source for students by facilitating the creation of a partnership between businesses and prospective students. This program is difficult to define without engaging in discussion with businesses, however, the basic model is akin to the military program of exchanging a college education for 2-6 years in the military post graduation. It is beneficial for both parties. The student gets a college education at a post secondary education, specifically focusing on those achieving 2-year degrees, and the company gains an employee in whom they are confident. The logistics of picking students and the entailed requirements are still up for discussion, but the beginnings of such a program are well within reach.
As this policy is implemented, we hope to see an increase in interest in alternative post secondary options. To accommodate the expected influx of students, as well as incentivize pursuing such options, it will be necessary to provide them with proportional financial backing provided a student entering a four-year institution which, according to the College Board, was on average $4,293 in 2010-2011. Ohio is doing well in the amount of financial support it gives post secondary options, but the state is not performing well when assistance is looked at on a per-capita basis. In order to better the distribution of assistance within the state as well as incentivize students to pursue options outside of a 4-year degree we want to redefine award criteria for all state grants and scholarships. Most are already written as such, but we would like to go so far as to no longer permit awards for for-profit institutions, excluding private institutions. The reasoning is to further promote community college, vocational, and technical training over for-profit institutions.
Benefits and Drawbacks:
The challenges of implementation include not only locating funding for such an overarching program, but also the assessment of the most efficient use of dollars. Our strategy of building a relationship between companies and students in the form of co-ops/internships/scholarship sponsorships will help bridge the gap in the budget, however the buy-in needed from each company will come with it’s own set of difficulties. The most pressing object to this policy is the difficulty of addressing the stigma of alternative forms of education as well as subtly yet effectively dealing with the accompanying social issues. Policy is never the conclusion of efforts in creating a new era of social policy, but it is always the beginning.
With the introduction and implementation of this policy, long term issues of college access and the associated cost increases will be undertaken and solved through a feasible solution with the propensity for further growth in Ohio, both educationally and economically. This solution is not only fiscally feasible but also fiscally responsible as it begins to alleviate the stress on four-year institutions to admit, support, house, and retain the record number of students entering Ohio’s universities. That responsibility extends to taxpayers as this policy funds its efforts through a reallocation of funds rather than an increase in spending. Of course, that same fiscal responsibility translates into social responsibility as more families are able to return to school and therefore pursue better paying jobs in Ohio, thus breaking the cycle of job attrition and the loss of recent graduates to other states.
Proposed Results
There are four inherent results that accompany the usage of this policy. First, this policy will decrease the unemployment rate in Ohio in both the short and long term. It will be easier for people with training to obtain and retain jobs once they acquire the necessary skills through some form of post-secondary education. Second, it will combat poverty through a competent and talented workforce. This is a direct result of the decreased unemployment rate; if more people are employed, then more people are able to provide for their families and the poverty rate will decrease. Third, it will conserve jobs and economic development in the state through providing a skilled workforce for those jobs. There would be little reasoning behind moving out of the state of Ohio if one can obtain and retain employment within the state. Fourth, this policy will combat the social stigma of attaining a degree or talent development outside of a four-year institution. This will be a direct result of the advertising campaign. By promoting the concept of college as talent development, high school students, employers, and society in general will come to terms with post-secondary enrollment consisting of a variety of options rather than only four-year institutions.
Conclusion
If adopted, the recommendations of this policy proposal would ameliorate some of the major problems facing the state of Ohio, including unemployment and poverty rates as well as poor job retention rates within the state, by providing society with a clearer view of post-secondary education as one that results in the development of an individual’s unique talents and contributions to Ohio.